IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.33176 -M of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 7, 2010 PUNEET GUPTA & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sanjeeva Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. Nirmal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.200 dated 5.1.2006 under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 43, 66, 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station, Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were employees of respondent No.2. Some differences arose between the employer (respondent No.2) and the employees (petitioners) and, therefore, the FIR came to be lodged. All the disputes between the parties have been settled by way of amicable settlement. Accordingly, a Criminal Misc. No.33176 -M of 2009 (O&M) 2 compromise deed has been drawn, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that, indeed, the FIR came to be lodged in view of differences between the employer (respondent No.2) and the employees (petitioners). I have considered the issue. In the terms of settlement (Annexure P-2), it has been clarified by respondent No.2-Management that the Management was misled by certain people. In fact, the petitioners had not committed any offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and had not taken away any information by way of documents or otherwise to the prejudice of respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 has prayed for quashing of the FIR. Since, respondent No.2/complainant would be the victim and is not ready to prosecute the petitioners, continuance of the proceedings shall not serve any purpose in law. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.200 dated 5.1.2006 under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 43, 66, 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station, Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. April 7, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?