Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 7607U / 2025Jishan Sheikh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8759]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7795/2025
1. Mohammad Rahil Belim S/o Mohmmad Salim, Aged About
22 Years, 1. Resident Of Oppsite Teliyo Ki Masjid Sojti
Get, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur East. (Raj.)
2. Mohmmad Yasin S/o Mohmmad Safi, Aged About 25
Years, 2. Resident Of 119, Near Jubeda Masjid, New
Road, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur East. (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Surendra Bhandari S/o Godyalchand, Resident Of Aaiport,
Old Police Line, Raika Bag Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4371/2025
1. Jishan Sheikh S/o Sh. Kashmir Mohammad Sheikh, Aged
About 22 Years, Resident Of Labour Colony Pratap Nagar
Bhilwara
2. Rashid @ Rashid Alam S/o Sh. Taslim Madin, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Nicha Khali Ps Chodhara Tehsil
Utardinajpur West Bengal At Present Resident Of Labour
Colony Pratap Nagar Bhilwara
3. Yunus Khan @ Lucky @ Hacker S/o Sh. Noor Mohamad,
Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Labour Colony Pratap
Nagar Bhilwara
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Surendra Bhandari S/o Sh. Godayal Chand, Resident Of
Bhandari Export Purani Police Line Rai Ka Bagh Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Buddhpal Singh
Mr. RC Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Vishal Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 17/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 17/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.05.2026
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8759] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-7795/2025]
1. The present criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973) seeking quashing of FIR No.07/2024 dated
25.06.2024 registered at Cyber Police Station, Jodhpur East for
offences punishable under Sections 384, 419, 420 and 120-B IPC
and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act,
2000 along with all consequential proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute
between the petitioners and respondent No.2 has been amicably
resolved and the parties have entered into a compromise. It is
submitted that the complainant does not wish to pursue the
present criminal proceedings any further and therefore, in view of
the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR and all
consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed in exercise of
the inherent powers of this Court.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
petitions and submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR
disclose commission of offences not only under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 but also under the provisions of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. It is also submitted that cyber offences are
not merely a private dispute between individuals but affect public
confidence in digital systems and electronic transactions and
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8759] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-7795/2025]
therefore cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the material available on record.
5. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the corresponding
provisions of Section 528 BNSS, may quash criminal proceedings
where the dispute between the parties is essentially private in
nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount
to abuse of the process of law.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that criminal proceedings
involving offences which are predominantly of a civil character or
arise out of matrimonial, commercial or family disputes may be
quashed in exercise of inherent powers if the parties have settled
the matter. Similarly, in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court laid down guidelines
governing the exercise of such powers and observed that quashing
on the basis of compromise may be permissible in disputes having
overwhelmingly civil flavour. However, such power is to be
exercised with caution and does not extend to cases involving
serious offences or offences having a wider societal impact.
7. Further, in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of
Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8759] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-7795/2025]
that while considering quashing of criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise, the High Court must examine the nature and
gravity of the offence, and also clarified that economic offences
affecting the financial well-being of the State cannot be treated as
mere private disputes and the Court would be justified in declining
quashing in such cases.
“(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
state have implications which lie beyond the domain of
a mere dispute between private disputants. The High
Court would be justified in declining to quash where
the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial
or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
8. However, it is equally well settled that offences of a serious
nature, or those having a wider societal impact, cannot be
quashed merely on account of a compromise arrived at between
the parties. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi
Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, while relying upon the principles
laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9
SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that offences of a
serious nature, particularly economic offences or those having a
bearing on society at large, cannot ordinarily be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the parties. Similarly, in CBI
vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that the inherent power of the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where
there is manifest injustice or abuse of process of Court, and
further held that in cases of economic offences, the Court must
keep in view not only the individual victim but also the society at
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8759] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-7795/2025]
large, as such offences are committed with deliberate design for
personal gain and have serious repercussions on the community;
therefore, quashing of such proceedings merely on the basis of
settlement would amount to misplaced sympathy, since such
crimes are essentially public wrongs affecting society at large and
cannot be treated as mere private disputes between individuals.
9. In the instant case, apart from offences registered under the
Indian Penal Code, the FIR also alleges commission of offences
under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act,
2000. Section 66-C relates to identity theft and Section 66-D
pertains to cheating by personation using computer resources.
Offences of this nature involve misuse of digital identity and
electronic platforms and have far-reaching implications beyond the
immediate parties involved, endangering the digital ecosystem
and undermining public confidence in electronic transactions. Such
acts, by their very nature, transcend private disputes and assume
the character of offences impacting society at large.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC 18 has held that
the Information Technology Act is a special enactment containing
specific provisions dealing with offences in the electronic domain,
and that where an offence pertains to electronic records, the
provisions of the IT Act would have overriding effect and must be
given full play. The Court further observed that once the offence
relates to electronic form, the special provisions under the IT Act
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8759] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-7795/2025]
would prevail and govern the field, thereby emphasizing the
distinct and exclusive framework governing cyber offences.
11. Cyber crimes are therefore not merely disputes between
private individuals but are offences which affect the digital
ecosystem and public confidence in electronic transactions.
Therefore, permitting quashing of such offences solely on the
basis of compromise between the parties would defeat the
purpose and object of the legislation enacted to curb cyber crimes.
12. The allegations in the FIR in the present case disclose
commission of offences involving cheating and impersonation
through electronic means, wherein the accused persons, by posing
as police/CBI officials through phone calls and electronic
communication, induced and coerced the complainant to transfer
substantial amounts of money under threat of criminal action.
Such offences are capable of affecting a large number of
unsuspecting persons who rely upon digital platforms and
electronic communication for financial and commercial
transactions. In such circumstances, the offence assumes a
character which transcends the private dispute between the
parties and enters the realm of public interest.
13. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the inherent
powers vested in it are required to be exercised with great
caution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 1
SCC 401 has observed that the power of quashing should be
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8759] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-7795/2025]
exercised sparingly with circumspection, and only in the “rarest of
rare cases,” in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to
secure the ends of justice.
14. Therefore, after considering the nature of the allegations and
the statutory provisions involved, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the offences alleged in the present FIR, particularly
those under the Information Technology Act, cannot be regarded
as purely private disputes between the parties so as to warrant
quashing of the criminal proceedings merely on the basis of a
compromise.
15. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the FIR
No.07/2024 dated 25.06.2024 registered at Cyber Police Station,
Jodhpur East.
16. It is however clarified that the observations made herein are
only for the purpose of deciding the present petitions and shall not
affect the merits of the case during the course of investigation or
trial.
17. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petitions are
dismissed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
16-deep/-
(Uploaded on 06/05/2026 at 02:41:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/05/2026 at 09:45:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
