Mukesh Chandel Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Mukesh Chandel Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No. 303 of 2017 dated 15.11.2017 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, together with consequential quashing of all criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused; pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 303 of 2017 (Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P.), registered for an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the informant.

Court's answer

In view of the binding precedents of this Court (Mohit Gupta, Vidya Devi and Yuvraj Singh), wherein FIRs for offences under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act were quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 303 of 2017, dated 15.11.2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P., is quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Consequent upon the quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance of the FIR are also quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — FIR No. 303 of 2017, Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P., registered for offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — petitioner asserted the matter stood compromised between the parties and the informant did not wish to pursue it — informant's statement recorded on 26.6.2024 confirmed the compromise was voluntary and she had no objection to quashing — this Court's earlier decisions quashing Section 67 IT Act FIRs on compromise (Mohit Gupta, 2022 STPL 13717 HP; Vidya Devi and Yuvraj Singh, printed as 2022 STPL 13724 HP) held binding upon this Court — petition allowed; FIR and consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused quashed — pending applications disposed — authorities directed to accept a downloaded copy of the judgment from the High Court website in lieu of a certified copy.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8523 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 593 of 2023 Reserved on: 13.8.2024 Date of Decision: 13.9.2024.

Mukesh Chandel ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and another

...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 303 of 2017, dated 15.11.2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of

an offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It has been asserted that the matter has

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

1

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8523 )

been compromised between the parties. There was a misunderstanding between them which has been cleared. The informant does not want to pursue the matter as per the compromise. Hence, the petition.

The informant's statement was recorded on 26.6.2024, in which she stated that she had compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence and that she had no objection in case the compromise was accepted and the FIR is ordered to be quashed as per the compromise effected between the parties.

I have heard Ms Kanta Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and Ms Tim Saran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

This Court had quashed the FIR registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act in Mohit Gupta Vs. State of H.P. 2022 STPL 13717 HP, Vidya Devi vs. State of H.P. 2022 STPL 13724 HP and Yuvraj Singh vs. State of H.P. 2022 STPL 13724 HP based on the

3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8523 )

compromise between the parties whose judgments are binding upon this Court.

Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 303 of 2017, dated 15.11.2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 is quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed .

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.

13^th September, 2024 (Chander)

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge