SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The petition in hand has been preferred by the accused – petitioners, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 27.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred as the impugned FIR) registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61 of BNS at Police Station PS Cyber Sonipat, Haryana, as also the proceedings subsequent thereto, on the basis of a compromise deed dated 20.09.2025 (appended as Annexure P-2 with the present petition).

2. The gravamen of the impugned FIR is that the complainant namely Divya daughter of Suresh Kumar, Resident of 1008/3, SBI Lane, New Colony, Railway Road, Sonipat alleged that she is employed as an Accountant at Institute of Competitive Studies Pvt. Ltd, having an account with the HDFC Bank bearing Account No.50200053031318. On 24.06.2025, a total of seven unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs.14,83,696/- were carried out from the said account without the knowledge or consent of the complainant. No OTP or transaction message was received at the time of

these transactions. Upon logging into net banking, the complainant discovered the fraudulent withdrawals. The complainant later learned that the money had been transferred to fraudulent accounts opened using fake documents through a fake website. Thereafter, an online complaint was lodged at the Cyber Crime Helpline (1930) and a complaint was registered under No.31306250043329. Based on this complaint, the present FIR has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the impugned FIR. According to learned counsel, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties with the intervention of the respectable persons and respondent No.2-complainant does not want to continue with the impugned FIR. Learned counsel has further urged that a compromise was entered into between the petitioners and the FIR-complainant on 20.09.2025, relevant whereof reads as under:-

“1. That the First Party agrees to withdraw the complaint/FIR/no longer pursue the legal case against the Second Party in respect of the aforementioned cybercrime and has no further grievance or claim in this matter.

2. That both parties affirm that this compromise has been entered into voluntarily, with full understanding of its legal implications.

3. That both parties undertake to cooperate in filing appropriate applications before the Hon’ble Court/Police Authorities for quashing of FIR (if registered), withdrawal of complaint or seeking permission for compromise under applicable law.

4. That this compromise shall be binding on both parties, their legal heirs, representatives and assigns.”

Learned counsel has, thus, iterated that the FIR in question, which was got registered on account of a misunderstanding, has since been resolved between the parties and in order to keep peace as also harmony, the

parties do not wish to continue with proceedings against each other, including the impugned FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that, pursuant to order dated 25.09.2025 earlier passed by this Court, statements of the rival private parties were recorded before the concerned Magistrate wherein the said parties have reiterated having entered into settlement and a report dated 10.10.2025 has been received from the said Magisterial Court. Learned counsel has further urged that no useful purpose would likely be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners. Thus, it has been entreated that the petition in hand be granted.

4. Learned State counsel has argued that the impugned FIR was registered for serious allegations of cyber fraud involving fraudulent transactions. According to learned State counsel, the offence of cyber fraud not only affects the complainant but also erodes the public confidence in digital banking transactions. Though the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant has expressed no objection to