The main legal point established is that quashing of criminal proceedings can be justified in cases of compromise, especially in matrimonial disputes, to meet the ends of justice.

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”) for quashing of F.I.R No. 23/14, dated 19.2.2014, under Sections 323, 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dev Raj & ors.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that complainant-Vineet Kumar, lodged FIR alleging therein that on 19.2.2014, marriage was being solemnized at village Badoh, Tehsil Amb, District Una, at that time, complainant-Vineet Kumar was distributing the meals, where all the accused persons (petitioners) came there and started giving beatings to him without any reason and rhyme. Thereafter, the complainant thought that they (petitioners) may again quarrel with him. The complainant alongwith his father (Balwinder Singh-respondent No. 2) with his uncle came back to his house, when the complainant reached near wheat mill of Tiku, the petitioners came on a Scooty and after stopping down, they caught hold the complainant from his neck and gave beatings to him. The petitioners have also started gave beatings with kicks and fist blows, on account of which, shirt of the complainant was torn and sustained injuries. Thereafter, the complainant narrated the whole incident to the police, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide written Compromise (Annexure P-3) and do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the complainant in this case has died, his father (Balwinder Singh-respondent No.2) has entered into a compromise with the accused-petitioners, which is on record (Annexure P-3) and the cross FIR already stands compromised and compounded in the learned Court below, therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioners and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside. He has also referred to Section 321 (4) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the offence is not compoundable, so the present petition may be dismissed.

5. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, has argued that the parties have entered into compromise and so, the proceedings pending before the learned Court below may be quashed.

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

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the provision, as contained in Section 321 (4) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the fact that both the parties have now compromised the matter and they want to live in peace being neighbourers and otherwise also, if the proceedings are not quashed, there are no chances of trial culminating into conviction, as the parties have already compromised the matter, vide Annexure P-3.

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 c