ORDER

% 16.01.2024

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.

137/2023 dated 25.09.2023, for offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Cyber Police Station, Dwarka. The said FIR was registered on a complaint made by Respondent No. 2.

2. It is averred that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are relatives and are also neighbours. Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the SHO, Cyber Police Station, Dwarka, Delhi alleging that two fake Instagram accounts, using the photograph of Respondent No.2 and her sister, had been created with vulgar user IDs. The complaint which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR No. 137/2023. On investigation, it was discovered that the mobile number used to create the said fake IDs, is registered in the name of the petitioner.

3. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner has apologised to Respondent No.2 for any inconvenience caused, and the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of the Compromise Deed dated 20.12.2023, with the intervention of respectable members of the society, well- wishers and family, on their own free will without any coercion or pressure, undue influence.

4. In terms of the said compromise, the parties have agreed that they will approach this Court for quashing of FIR No.

137/2023.

5. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.

6. Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

7. Offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is non-compoundable where such an offence has been committed against a woman.

8. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under CrPC on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Courts while quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by p