Criminal Misc. No.M-35668 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-35668 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16th December, 2011 Sunny Dhiman .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. J. S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1. Mr. S. K. Bawa, Advocate respondents No.2 and 3. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.69392 of 2011. The application is allowed and reply affidavits of respondents No.2 and 3 annexed with the application are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case Accused Sunny Dhiman has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.), for quashing FIR No.4 dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 66E/67-A Information Technology Act 2000 and Sections 328, 354, 506, 509 of IPC registered at Police Station Punjab State Cyber Crime SAS Nagar, Punjab, District Mohali, in view of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected with respondent No.2-complainant as well as his daughter respondent No.3 (the victim). In reply affidavits on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, compromise Annexure P-2 has been admitted and it has been stated that respondents No.2 and 3 have no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 also states that in view of compromise, respondents No.2 and 3 have no Criminal Misc. No.M-35668 of 2011 (O&M) -2- objection to the quashing of the FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In appropriate cases, FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P. C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(2) Law Herald (Punjab & Haryana) 2225. In the instant case, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 states that although offences involved are of serious nature, yet respondents No.2 and 3 have entered into compromise with the petitioner keeping in view future life of respondent No.3 who is unmarried girl. I have carefully considered the matter. Ordinarily FIR involving such offences as in the instant case, would not be quashed even on the basis of compromise. However, in the instant case, future life of respondent No.3 unmarried girl including her marriage prospects may be adversely effected if the FIR is not quashed. It is apparent that keeping in view this circumstance, respondents No.2 and 3 have entered into compromise. The petitioner has already remained in custody since 22.08.2011 till today i.e. for almost four months. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly instant petition is allowed and impugned FIR Annexure P- 1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ( L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16th December, 2011 'raj'