Back
2021 Supreme(MP) 555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.
Neha Jain (Smt.) v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 53505 of 2020 (J); Decided on 28.7.2021*
Abhishek Gulatee for applicant; Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1/ State; Sitendra Kumar Vishwakarma for respondent No. 2; Satyam Agrawal for intervener.
Headnote:
Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 320 and 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 466, 468 and 120B r/w S. 34 -- Information Technology Act, 2008 -- Ss. 65, 66, 66C and 66D -- quashing of FIR -- applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got married -- some disputes arose -- both filed civil and criminal cases against each other -- respondent No. 2 preferred complaint that his income tax return was hacked online illegally in violation of rights and privacy -- after investigation, FIR registered against applicants -- parties entered into compromise -- offence was committed against respondent No. 2/husband to obtain information regarding his income tax as applicant No. 1/wife was seeking maintenance -- offence is of personal nature and cannot affect society or State -- FIR quashed. (2008) 9 SCC 677 and (2012) 10 SCC 303 followed. [Paras 8, 9, 12 & 14]
naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 320 rFkk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 466] 468 rFkk 120[k lgifBr èkkjk 34 & lwpuk ç©|¨fxdh vfèkfu;e] 2008 & èkkjk 65] 66] 66x rFkk 66Ä & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ dk vfÒ[kaMu & vkosfndk Øekad 1 rFkk çR;FkÊ Øekad 2 us fookg fd;k & dqN fookn gq, & n¨u¨a us ,d&nwljs d¢ fo#) flfoy rFkk vkijkfèkd ekeys Qkby fd, & çR;FkÊ Øekad 2 us ifjokn çLrqr fd;k fd vfèkdkj¨a rFkk futrk dk vfrØe.k djrs gq, mldh vk;dj fooj.kh voSèk :i ls vkWuykbu gSd dh xà & vUos"k.k d¢ i'pkr~ vkosndx.k d¢ fo#) çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ jftLVªhÑr & i{kdkj¨a esa le>©rk gqvk & vijkèk çR;FkÊ Øekad 2@ifr d¢ fo#)] mld¢ vk;dj dh tkudkjh çkIr djus ds fy, fd;k x;k D;¨afd çR;fFkZuh Øekad 1@iRuh Òj.ki¨"k.k dh ÃIlk dj jgh Fkh & vijkèk O;fäxr çÑfr dk gS rFkk lekt vFkok jkT; d¨ çÒkfor ugha dj ldrk & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ vfÒ[kafMrA ¼2008½ 9 ,l lh lh 677 rFkk ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 303 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8] 9] 12 ,oa 14½
ORDER
1. The applicants have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 30.8.2016 (Annexure P-3) registered against them in relation to Crime No. 106/2016 at Cyber Cell, Bhopal for the offences punishable under sections 466, 468, 120B read with section 34 of the IPC and sections 65, 66, 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 on account of compromise entered into between applicant No. 1 Smt. Neha Jain and respondent No. 2 Hemant Jain (Annexure P-4).
2. The facts, in short, are that applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 27.5.2014. After sometime, some disputes arose between them, as a result of which they both filed civil and criminal cases against each other. On 17.7.2015, applicant No. 1/wife lodged an FIR against respondent No. 2/husband and other family members for offences under sections 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC. She also filed a civil suit under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage against respondent No. 2 and an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from respondent No. 2.
3. Respondent No. 2/husband preferred a complaint against unknown persons on the ground that his income tax return has been hacked online illegally in violation of rights and privacy without authorization, on the basis of which after due investigation the FIR dated 30.8.2016 (Annexure P-3) was registered against the applicants vide Crime No. 106/2016 at Cyber Cell, Bhopal for the offences punishable under sections 466, 468, 120B read with section 34 of the IPC and sections 65, 66, 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
4. After sometime, the parties entered into a compromise (Annexure P-4) on 25.1.2020. According to the said compromise, respondent No. 2 agreed to take back the impugned FIR registered against the applicants. In pursuance to the said compromise, the parties moved an application (Annexure P-5) on 11.2.2020 under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of mutual divorce, which is still pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ganjbasauda, District Vidisha. Applications (M.Cr.C. Nos. 1069/2016 and 1153/2016) have also been filed before the Gwalior Bench of this Court under section 320 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered against mother, sister-in-law & brother of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 respectively under Sections 498 A, 506 of the IPC read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have amicably settled all their disputes under no fraud, fear, influence, coercion or force or compulsion, therefore, the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed. It is further submitted that it is a matter between the husband and wife therefore, there is no occasion for the interveners to intervene in the matter. The husband and wife both have compromised the matter and now they have decided to live peacefully in future, therefore, the application for intervention may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Vijay Shankar v. State of M.P. and another reported in 2019 SCC Online MP 5038.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also supported the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, the impugned FIR and its consequential proceedings may be quashed.
7. An application for intervention I.A. No. 3635/2021 has been filed by Dr. Sumant Jain and Dr. Neha Jain, who are brother and sister-in-law
