NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph โ€” Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

W.P.(CRL)/2004/2016 of AMIT KUMAR & ORS Vs THE STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Court
Delhi High Court
Decision date
2016-07-15
Case number
10466 of 2016

Parties

Cites (1)

Statutes cited (1)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 2004/2016

AMIT KUMAR & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Brijender S. Dhull, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC with Ms.Srilina Roy, Adv. and ASI Tej Ram,P.S. NajafgarhMr.VikasdeepSharma,Adv.forrespondent no. 2/complainantSrilina Roy, Adv. and ASI Tej Ram,P.S. NajafgarhMr.VikasdeepSharma,Adv.forrespondent no. 2/complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%15.07.2016

Crl. M.A. No. 10466/2016 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2004/2016

Complainant is the CEO and Executive Director of M/s. Six SigmaStar Healthcare (P) Ltd.Petitioners were the employees of the saidcompany.Present FIR under Sections 406/420 IPC read with Sections66(2)/76/65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered at

Police Station Najafgarh on the complaint of respondent no. 2, wherein ithas been alleged that petitioners had hacked the email ID of the saidcompany and sent emails from time to time to various business associatesand clients of the company including email dated 12[th]January, 2012,levelling therein false and defamatory allegations. During the investigationsitself, petitioners and the complainant have settled their disputes amicablyonthetermsandconditionsasstipulatedintheCompromiseDeed/Agreement dated 9[th]July, 2016 (Annexure P-1).

Respondent no. 2/complainant is present in Court and submits thatcompromise has indeed been entered into between him on behalf of thecompany and the petitioners. He submits that in view of the compromise,respondent no. 2 is not interested in pursuing the FIR any further and thesame be quashed.

Keeping in mind the nature of offence and more particularly the factthat petitioners and respondent no. 2 have compromised the matter at thethreshold of investigation, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 236/2012 underSections 406/420 IPC read with Sections 66(2)/76/65 of the InformationTechnology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Najafgarh and theconsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

JULY 15, 2016rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.