CRM-M-4850-2025 321 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manpreet Kaur Oberoi State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gajender Singh Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No. dated 15.01.2025 Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120 Police Station Civil Line Kaithal. 2. The FIR the investigation commenced thereon. However, present case, a connected matter bearing No.CRM the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this C where the parties dated 22.05.2025 ( petitioner is praying that continuation of these proceedings wo exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Manpreet Kaur Oberoi VERSUS Haryana and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gajender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. -.- Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No. 15.01.2025 registered under Sections 63, 66, 66(D) of Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC Civil Line Kaithal. The FIR in question was lodged by complainant the investigation commenced thereon. However, , a connected matter bearing No.CRM the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this C the parties resolved their inter se dispute, whi dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure A-2). On the basis of the praying that continuation of these proceedings wo exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4850-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate and the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.0008 63, 66, 66(D) of Information and B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, during the pendency of the , a connected matter bearing No.CRM-M-15567-2025 was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025 resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from settlement . On the basis of the said compromise, the praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all 0008, 63, 66, 66(D) of Information and B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC at respondent No.2 and during the pendency of the was referred to vide order dated 27.03.2025, settlement compromise, the uld be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4850-2025 the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. 3. This Court vide order dated before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4. In pursuance to the same, learned Pathankot has sent report photocopy of the statements of petitioner, namely, Manpreet Kaur Oberoi Inspector Sushil Kumar Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Pathankot compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in the report that there is only one petitioner. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused declared proclaimed offender nor As per the report, it has been mentioned in the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between them. However, the peti been effected between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be accepted. 2025 (O&M) the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of This Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its In pursuance to the same, learned has sent report dated 09.10.2025. With the report, he has annexed photocopy of the statements of complainant-respondent No.2 , namely, Manpreet Kaur Oberoi dated Inspector Sushil Kumar dated 17.09.2028. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Pathankot has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in the report that there is only one accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioner. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused declared proclaimed offender nor she is involved any other case. As per the report, it has been mentioned in the statement of /respondent No. 2 that the present petitioner/accused is not complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between them. However, the petitioner has denied the said fact and submits that compromise has between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be -2- the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of 11.09.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, . With the report, he has annexed respondent No.2 Rohit Khurania, and dated 17.09.2025 and statement of . On the basis of the statements, learned has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioner. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused has been involved any other case. As per the report, it has been mentioned in the statement of that the present petitioner/accused is not complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between them. tioner has denied the said fact and submits that compromise has Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its Ist Class, . With the report, he has annexed and and statement of . On the basis of the statements, learned has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in accused in the present case i.e. the present been the that the present petitioner/accused is not complying with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between them. tioner has denied the said fact and submits that compromise has Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4850-2025 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. 7. At this stage, learned State counsel has pointed out that there are total three accused in the present case, however, only two have approached quash the FIR. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the statement of the Investing Officer i.e. Inspector Sahil Kumar, wherein he has deposed that during investigation third accused innocent. 8. In view of the same, the compromise effected between the complainant and petitioners, who have approached this Court, cannot be said to be partial compromise. 9. A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 Bhartiya Nagrik Sur which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, 2023. 10. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. At this stage, learned State counsel has pointed out that there are total three accused in the present case, however, only two have approached quash the FIR. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the statement of the Investing Officer i.e. Inspector Sahil Kumar, wherein he has deposed that during investigation third accused In view of the same, the compromise effected between the complainant and petitioners, who have approached this Court, cannot be said to be partial compromise. A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of a Sanhita, 2023 would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, B.S.Joshi and others vs Sta another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench -3- Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if At this stage, learned State counsel has pointed out that there are total three accused in the present case, however, only two have approached this Court to quash the FIR. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the statement of the Investing Officer i.e. Inspector Sahil Kumar, wherein he has deposed that during investigation third accused- Gaurav Gupta, has been found In view of the same, the compromise effected between the complainant and petitioners, who have approached this Court, cannot be said to be A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and followed by this Court in Full Bench Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if At this stage, learned State counsel has pointed out that there are total this Court to quash the FIR. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the statement of the Investing Officer i.e. Inspector Sahil Kumar, wherein he has Gaurav Gupta, has been found In view of the same, the compromise effected between the complainant and petitioners, who have approached this Court, cannot be said to be Bhartiya Nagrik would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab te of Haryana and followed by this Court in Full Bench TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4850-2025 case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law. 11. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in Haryana vs Bhajan as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justi any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of ea exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. can fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relatio offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal 2025 (O&M) Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. can fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relatio offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal -4- Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) ce, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances ch case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled State of Punjab (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and State of , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) ce, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances ch case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of not be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any n to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4850-2025 proceedings involving such offences. But the cri overwhelmingly and pre different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proce compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice woul despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 12. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and t into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the p ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2025 (O&M) proceedings involving such offences. But the cri overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the iminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -5- proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court edings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme d be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the iminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of his High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and etitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under minal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, fences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court edings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme d be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the iminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of his High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and etitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4850-2025 13. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the hence, FIR No.0008, dated 15.01.2025 registered under Sections 63, 66, 66(D) of Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120 and 471 IPC at Police proceedings arising therefrom, of compromise Annexure 14. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their below. Petition stands allowed. May 07, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0008, dated 15.01.2025 registered under Sections 63, 66, 66(D) of Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120 and 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Line proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise Annexure A-2. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. Petition stands allowed. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0008, dated 15.01.2025 registered under Sections 63, 66, 66(D) of Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 468 Kaithal and all the subsequent are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and statements recorded before the Court (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0008, dated 15.01.2025 registered under Sections 63, 66, 66(D) of B, 34, 406, 409, 420, 468 and all the subsequent are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and statements recorded before the Court (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.13 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document