The main legal principle established is that the court can quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice, especially when the parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") for quashing of F.I.R No. 12/2018, dated 26.1.2018, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, on 26.01.2018, the prosecutrix (name withheld) got her statement recorded with the police, wherein she stated that she is 16 years of age and studies in 11th standard. She further stated that respondent No.2-accused on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her many times. As per the prosecutrix, in the month of March, 2018, she came to know that respondent No.2-accused does not want to marry her. She came to know that she is pregnant and respondent No.2-accused on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. As per the final medical opinion, there is single live intrauterine pregnancy of 25 weeks, 03 days, i.e., HR 138 beats/min EDD on 27.05.2018 and there is no gross congenital anomaly seen. Thereafter, complainant-petitioner No.2 reported the matter to the police and FIR was lodged. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise and are married having a child with whom they are living happily. Prosecutrix is not supporting the prosecution case and as family is happy family compromised the matter and prosecutrix do not want to pursue the case against respondent No.2. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioners and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside.

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

5. Mr. M.L. Sharma, 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. 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 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 does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or ex