Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 509 of IPC of 1860 (Section 204 of IPC of 1860 and Section 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2000
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 509 of IPC of 1860 (Section 204 of IPC of 1860 and Section 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2000
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    RITU v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

    AT CHANDIGARH

    303

    CRM-M-47208-2024 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025

    RITU

    ...Petitioner Versus

    STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

    ...Respondents

    CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

    **** Present: Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Gupta, DAG, Haryana.

    Mr. Vikram Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.

    MANISHA BATRA , J. (ORAL)

    1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No 131 dated 14.05.2024, registered under Section 509 of IPC of 1860 (Section 204 of IPC of 1860 and Section 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2000 added later on), at Police Station Cyber West, District Gurugram and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-1).

    2. This Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.

    3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram and got their statements

    1 of 2

    CRM-M-47208-2024 -2-

    recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 28.02.2025 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.

    4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.

    5. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR.

    6. Following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and others (2012)

    10 SCC 303, this petition is allowed and FIR No 131 dated 14.05.2024, registered under Section 509 of IPC of 1860 (Section 204 of IPC of 1860 and Section 66 of Information and Technology Act, 2000 added later on), at Police Station Cyber West, District Gurugram and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) are quashed qua the petitioner.

    (MANISHA BATRA)

    JUDGE

    November 10, 2025

    Nisha-1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

    2 of 2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    RITU v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
    (Nov 10, 2025)