After Informant Settles Dispute, Jharkhand HC Quashes Alleged Cyber-Cheating Case Against Two Men

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 127 of 2024, registered under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and pending before the S.D.J.M., Godda.

The petitioners and the informant filed affidavits stating that they had settled their dispute; the informant did not wish to proceed.

The State had no objection to quashing.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which considered the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court stated that compromise may justify quashing where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature and the possibility of conviction is remote, but the nature and gravity of the offence must be considered; heinous, serious, or socially harmful offences ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court found that the offences in this case were not heinous and did not involve serious mental depravity; rather, the dispute was personal between the parties.

Given their complete settlement and the informant’s unwillingness to proceed, the Court considered the likelihood of conviction remote and concluded that continuing the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners and would be unjust.

The State’s lack of objection was also noted.

It quashed the FIR in Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 127 of 2024, pending before the S.D.J.M., Godda, qua the petitioners, allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition, and disposed of the interlocutory application.