BAKAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, (North) No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.411/2017 for the offence under Section 67 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act of 2000').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2, the Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur has registered an FIR No.34/2015 against the petitioner. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 66A of the Act, 2000 in the trial court and during the course of trial, the trial court discharged the petitioner from the offence under Section 66A of the Act of 2000, however, charge for the offence under Section 67 of the Act of 2000 was read over to the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, before framing of the charge against the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have moved an application while stating that both the parties have entered into compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order dated 31.5.2018 has rejected the application on the ground that the offence is not compoundable by virtue of provisions of the Act of 2000.

(3.) The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000 because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence punishable under Section 67 of the Act of 2000.