GOODAY OSAGBOGO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.38 of 2013 on the file of the 1st respondent police, registered for the offences under sections 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008 and 406, 419 & 420 IPC.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 24.01.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the second respondent/de -facto complainant along with his counsel are present. When this court enquired the second respondent/de -facto complainant about the factum of the compromise and terms of the compromise, he admitted the same and he has also categorically submitted that he is not interested in continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners/A1 and A2, due to compromise arrived at between them. The second respondent/de -facto complainant also filed an affidavit to that effect.