Rutaksha Rawat vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—On the previous date of hearing, the petitioner in this case was present. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are present. The second respondent was not present on that day. The counsels and the petitioner submitted that the matter has been compounded between the parties. Because the offence is non-compoundable in nature, the petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.

Today, the second respondent and her counsel are present before the court. The second respondent has admitted that the petitioner and herself have compounded the offences and she has absolutely no objection to quash the complaint lodged by her before the Commissioner, Cyber Crime Police Station, Palace Road, Bangalore.

The records disclose that the respondent No. 2 has filed FIR stating that some unknown person has been sending hate, malicious and scandalous mail under her signature from her email account and she has requested to investigate the matter and submit report to the Court. It is also alleged that a person who knows the second respondent and knows about her personal and business affairs which are freely discussed in their office, must have sent those e-mails to hundreds of her clients and customers across India. She has also furnished the list of employees along with the complaint. The investigation has taken up and the Police have registered FIR in Crime No. 12/2012. During the course of investigation, the Police found that the petitioner has committed the offence and charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 66A and 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000. The second respondent who is present before the Court submitted that it is purely personal dispute between herself as well as the petitioner herein. There is no impact on the society so far as the dispute between themselves is allowed to be compromised. Therefore, she has no objection to quash the proceedings.

In a decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that-

"Inherent power of High Court u/s. 482 to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties-Whether available-If so, then when may such power be exercised-Social impact of crime in question vis-a-vis its individual impact, as decisive criterion for exercise of quashment power in such cases-Guidelines for and limitations on-.exercise of quashment power of High Court in such cases, laid down-whether S. 320 creates a bar/limits inherent power of High Court u/s. 482, examined.

Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 -Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case-Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S. 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact./

-Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute-Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."

The above said rulings clearly discloses that the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc., or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings. However, the court has to give its finding after considering the factual matrix of the cases with regard to the exigencies of the above said circumstance, then only the court can quash the proceedings.

Applying the above said principles, as admitted by the parties, it is purely personal in nature, relating to their business transactions. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings as sought for.

Hence, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the I Addl. CMM, Bangalore in CC No. 2895/2013 and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed.