Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”) are maintained by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R. No. 188 of 2016, dated 30.07.2016, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar-Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. and F.I.R No. 197 of 2016, dated 06.08.2016, under Sections 341, 323, 356, 147 & 149 of the Indian Penal code and alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petitions are that on 30.07.2016, at about 12.45 a.m. (morning), the petitioners (in both the petitions) met with an accident and a scuffle also took place between them. As per the petitioners (in Cr. MMO No. 179 of 2018), the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Devashish Thakur (petitioner in Cr. MMO No. 180 of 2018). However, as per Devashish Thakur the accident has occurred, as suddenly an animal had come in front of his car and he lost control over the same, due to which, his car hit with the car of the Anurag Ailawadi and when he stepped down from his car to see the damage, Anurag Ailawadi and his friends started beating him with fist, leg and stick blows and also stole Rs. 55,000/- (cash), a diamond ring and a gold chain. After the said accident, Anurag Ailawadi reported the matter to the Police and F.I.R. No. 188 of 2016, dated 30.07.2016, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal code was registered against Devashish Thakur. On 06.08.2016, Devashish Thakur also registered a cross F.I.R. No. 197 of 2016, under Sections 341, 323, 356, 147 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code against Anurag Ailawadi and his friends. However, now the parties have entered into a compromise/Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P-2) and they do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, vide Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure P-2) in presence of the witnesses and they do not want to pursue the cases against each other, as per the terms of the compromise, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against them, hence the F.I.R., alongwith consequent proceedings, arising out of the same, pending before the learned Court below may be quashed and set aside.

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

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

6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers.

[8] It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye's case d