Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J.
Mohammad Rahil Belim and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Rajasthan, Thr. PP and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7795 of 2025 connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4371 of 2025
Decided on 6.5.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Buddhpal Singh, Mr. RC Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP, Mr. Vishal Sharma
IMPORTANT POINT
Cyber-crimes are not merely disputes between private individuals but are offences which affect digital ecosystem and public confidence in electronic transactions.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 384, 419, 420 and 120-B – Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 66-C and 66-D – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Extortion, cheating and conspiracy – Compromise between parties – High Court may quash criminal proceedings where dispute between parties is essentially private in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law – However, offences of serious nature or those having wider societal impact, cannot be quashed merely on account of compromise between parties – Offences of present nature involve misuse of digital identity and electronic platforms and have far-reaching implications beyond immediate parties involved, endangering digital ecosystem and undermining public confidence in electronic transactions – Such acts, by their very nature, transcend private disputes and assume character of offences impacting society at large – Permitting quashing of such offences solely on the basis of compromise between parties would defeat purpose and object of legislation enacted to curb cyber-crimes – Quashing declined. (Paras 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15)
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The present criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking quashing of FIR No.07/2024 dated 25.06.2024 registered at Cyber Police Station, Jodhpur East for offences punishable under Sections 384, 419, 420 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with all consequential proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 has been amicably resolved and the parties have entered into a compromise. It is submitted that the complainant does not wish to pursue the present criminal proceedings any further and therefore, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petitions and submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR disclose commission of offences not only under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but also under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is also submitted that cyber offences are not merely a private dispute between individuals but affect public confidence in digital systems and electronic transactions and therefore cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record.
5. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the corresponding provisions of Section 528 BNSS, may quash criminal proceedings where the dispute between the parties is essentially private in nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that criminal proceedings involving offences which are predominantly of a civil character or arise out of matrimonial, commercial or family disputes may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers if the parties have settled the matter. Similarly, in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court laid down guidelines governing the exercise of such powers and observed that quashing on the basis of compromise may be permissible in disputes having overwhelmingly civil flavour. However, such power is to be exercised with caution and does not extend to cases involving serious offences or offences having a wider societal impact.
7. Further, in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while considering quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, the High Court must examine the nature and gravity of the offence, and also clarified that economic offences affecting the financial well-being of the State cannot be treated as mere private disputes and the Court would be justified in declining quashing in such cases.
“(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
8. However, it is equally well settled that offences of a serious nature, or those having a wider societal impact, cannot be quashed merely on account of a compromise arrived at between the parties. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, while relying upo
