This application has been filed seeking to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 31.05.2018 State vs. Manish Kumar Sethi (arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 2018) under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Jaunpur pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Vaishali Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
It must be remarked at the outset that so far as the proceedings under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the same are absolutely without jurisdiction inasmuch as the provisions of the Act, last mentioned have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1. The impugned charge sheet to the extent it relates to the offence under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is liable to be quashed on this short ground alone.
So far as the other offences are concerned, in compliance with the order dated 19.10.2020, the compromise arrived at between parties annexed as annexure no. 3 to the application had been directed to be verified by the Magistrate. In compliance with this Court's order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur has submitted his report. It is put up along with a office report dated 06.01.2021. The report is dated 07.12.2020. It shows that parties to the impugned proceedings appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur on 05.12.2020 and verified the compromise dated 17.06.2020. A copy of the compromise has been forwarded, which bears the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, verifying the same.
Ms. Vaishali Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second opposite party has no objection in case the impugned proceedings are quashed.
Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned AGA states that looking to the allegations involved which are about an alleged assault with no injury, the State does not have much to say as it appears to be a matter which is primarily one inter se the parties. It is not a matter where public justice is the forerunner of the prosecution.
This Court has perused the material in the case diary and the compromise arrived at between parties.
Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in this regard in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303, where it has been held:
"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of opinion that given the compromise and settlement arrived at between parties and that public justice is not much involved in the present crime, where allegations are not very serious, it would be an abuse of process of Court to permit the prosecution to continue. It would also be a wastage of public time.
In the circumstances, this application is allowed. The impugned charge sheet dated 31.05.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 215 of 2018 State vs. Manish Kumar Sethi (arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 2018) under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Jaunpur pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur are hereby quashed.
An entry shall be made in the GD of the police station concerned to the effect that proceedings of Case Crime No. 215 of 2018 State vs. Manish Kumar Sethi under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Jaunpur have been quashed under orders of this Court. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur shall ensure compliance of this part of the order at the police station concerned.
Let this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur through the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur and the S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali District Jaunpur through the S.P., Juanpur by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) by Monday.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Deepak