The main legal principle established is that in cases of amicable settlement in matrimonial disputes, the court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition is maintained by the petitioner, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No. 154 of 2016, dated 28.06.2016, under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 352 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P. alongwith all consequential proceedings arising out of the above mentioned F.I.R.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 4/complainant (hereinafter to be called as “the complainant”) was solemnized on 03.11.2009 at Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Chandigarh and out of the said wedlock, two male children were born. On 27.06.2016, the complainant, without informing anyone, visited her parental house at Shimla. When the petitioner came to know that the complainant has left her matrimonial house alongwith both the children, the petitioner, in order to bring her back visited Shimla, but the complainant refused to accompany the petitioner, as a result of which, an altercation between the family members of the petitioner and the complainant took place. The petitioner in resentment took away his five years old son Hardik in his vehicle from the parental house of the complainant to his house at Chandigarh, consequently, the complainant went to the Police station Dhalli and lodged FIR against the petitioner. On the basis of FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2016, however during the course of investigation, the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner/husband and the complainant/wife, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2), wherein the parties have agreed to live peaceful life and do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence the present petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone the record carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute between the parties pertains to matrimonial dispute, which has now been resolved vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) and no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner and the FIR/Challan pending before the learned Court below may be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the gravity of offence demands that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner by allowing the present petition and the petition deserves dismissal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4/complainant has argued that as now the complainant is not having any grudge against the petitioner and the parties have entered into a compromise so, the proceedings pending before the learned Court below be quashed.

7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, have held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is well settled that the powers under section 482 have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers. Their Lordships have held as under:-

6. In Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others ((1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the Courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secu