IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :21.01.2026 SAHID AFRIDI ......PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Talim Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate for Mohd. Sabir, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.0003 dated 13.08.2022, under Sections 66 (C), 66(D), 67(A) of Information & Technology Act, 2000 and Section 384 of IPC, 1860, Police Station Cyber Manesar, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 02.07.2025, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in DLSA.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram, dated 25.08.2025 has been received and cost has also been deposited. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

5. As far as the offence, allegedly committed by the petitioner, is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under Sections 66 (C), 66(D), 67(A) of Information & Technology Act and Section 384 of IPC for which the petitioner has been prosecuted, is non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant principles of law, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;

ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioner;

iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;

iv) that the action of petitioners do not have a serious impact on the society; and v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means, viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;

xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court h