The Rajasthan High Court has firmly held that cyber offences involving identity theft and cheating by personation through electronic means cannot be quashed merely because the parties have reached a private compromise. The judgment underscores that such crimes strike at the integrity of the digital ecosystem and are not confined to private disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Mohammad Rahil Belim and Mohammad Yasin, along with three other petitioners in a connected petition, are accused in FIR No. 07/2024 registered on 25.06.2024 at the Cyber Police Station, Jodhpur East. The complainant, Surendra Bhandari, alleged that the accused impersonated police and CBI officials via phone calls and electronic communication, falsely threatening him with criminal proceedings. Under duress, he transferred substantial sums of money to accounts controlled by the accused. The FIR charges the petitioners under Sections 384, 419, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Key Facts
- The complainant was contacted by unknown persons posing as CBI officials on or about May 2024
- The accused used fake call IDs and forged documents to create an impression of official authority
- The complainant was induced to transfer Rs. 12,50,000 in multiple transactions between 15.05.2024 and 20.06.2024
- The transactions were routed through digital payment platforms and bank accounts linked to the accused
- The complainant filed the complaint on 24.06.2024 after realizing he had been defrauded
- The FIR was registered on 25.06.2024
- The petitioners filed applications under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing on 15.01.2025 and 20.02.2025
- A compromise affidavit was submitted on 10.03.2025, wherein the complainant stated he had been compensated and wished to withdraw the complaint
Procedural History
- 25.06.2024: FIR No. 07/2024 registered at Cyber Police Station, Jodhpur East
- 15.01.2025: First petition (CRLMP No. 7795/2025) filed seeking quashing
- 20.02.2025: Connected petition (CRLMP No. 4371/2025) filed by other accused
- 10.03.2025: Compromise affidavit submitted by complainant
- 17.02.2026: Arguments concluded before the Court
- 06.05.2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing petitions
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil and commercial in nature, arising from a financial transaction between the complainant and themselves. They submitted that the complainant had been fully compensated through a mutual settlement, had withdrawn his complaint, and no longer desired prosecution. They relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that courts may quash proceedings in private disputes where compromise is genuine.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions, arguing that the offences under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the IT Act are not private wrongs but public offences affecting the integrity of digital transactions. He emphasized that impersonation of law enforcement officials through electronic means undermines public trust in institutions and creates a chilling effect on digital commerce. He cited Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and CBI v. Maninder Singh to argue that economic and cyber offences cannot be quashed on compromise.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 07/2024 dated 25.06.2024, along with all consequential proceedings, including investigation and trial, on the ground of compromise between the parties.
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, solely on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that the Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings where the dispute is essentially civil or private in nature. They submitted that the complainant had received full restitution, had no grievance, and the matter was resolved amicably. They contended that the offences under IPC were ancillary to a civil fraud and that the IT Act offences were merely incidental to the same transaction.
For the Respondent
The State argued that Sections 66-C and 66-D of the IT Act are special provisions designed to protect the digital infrastructure of the country. They cited Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat and CBI v. Maninder Singh to assert that cyber offences involving impersonation and financial deception have societal ramifications beyond the immediate victim. The State emphasized that allowing quashing on compromise would encourage cyber fraudsters to settle privately after extracting money, thereby undermining deterrence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the nature of the offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and their implications under the broader framework of criminal jurisprudence. It noted that while the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) permit quashing in cases of private disputes, this power is not absolute and must yield to the public interest in cases involving statutory offences with societal consequences.
"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."
The Court emphasized that Sections 66-C and 66-D are not mere civil wrongs but criminal offences designed to protect the integrity of electronic communication and financial systems. The Court observed that impersonating police or CBI officials through digital means is not a private act of deception but a calculated attack on institutional credibility. Such acts, the Court held, are inherently public wrongs.
The Court further relied on Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which affirmed that the IT Act provides an exclusive framework for cyber offences and must be given full effect. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the IT Act offences were subsidiary to IPC offences, stating that the use of electronic means to commit fraud elevates the offence to a statutory crime with independent public consequences.
The Court also cited M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to caution that quashing powers must be exercised in the "rarest of rare cases" and only to prevent abuse of process. It concluded that permitting quashing in such cases would amount to condoning a dangerous precedent: that cyber criminals can evade prosecution by paying off victims after the fact.
The Verdict
The petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the FIR No. 07/2024 dated 25.06.2024 cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties. The investigation and trial shall proceed as per law. The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the issue of quashing and do not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cyber Offences Are Public Wrongs
- Practitioners must now argue that any offence under Sections 66-C or 66-D of the IT Act cannot be quashed merely on compromise, regardless of victim consent
- Settlements in cyber fraud cases are irrelevant to the state’s prosecutorial discretion
- Courts will treat such offences as non-compoundable by nature, even if the victim withdraws
Compromise Is Not a Shield Against Cyber Prosecution
- Lawyers representing accused in cyber fraud cases must advise clients that settlement with the victim does not guarantee immunity from prosecution
- The burden shifts to the defence to prove the offence is not of a public nature - a high threshold in IT Act cases
- Prosecutors may now invoke this judgment to oppose anticipatory bail or discharge applications in similar cases
Judicial Caution in Quashing Cyber Cases
- High Courts will scrutinize the nature of digital offences before entertaining quashing petitions
- Compromise affidavits in cyber cases will be treated with skepticism unless accompanied by evidence of genuine restitution and absence of coercion
- This judgment reinforces the principle that digital crimes are not private matters but threats to national digital infrastructure
