The High Court can quash criminal proceedings to meet the ends of justice, especially in cases of compromise between parties, and has the duty to encourage genuine settlements of disputes, particularly in matrimonial matters.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1. The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") has been maintained by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R. No. 23 of 2017, dated 21.03.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as "IPC") registered at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P. alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. pending before the learned trial Court.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that complainant/ respondent No. 3 got a complaint registered against the petitioners, alleging therein that petitioner No. 1 was employed as an Accountant in the Himalayan Group of Professional Institution and in furtherance of common intention and connivance with petitioner No. 2, started tempering with and manipulating the financial records of the said institution. Further, petitioner No. 1 misused his position of Accountant and begun siphoning off and swindling the funds and ended up withdrawing more than Rs. 13,00,000/- from the account of the complainant-Institution and fraudulently deposited the said amount in his own account, as well as in the account of his wife. Consequently, a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, came to be registered against the petitioners. However, now the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant/respondent No. 3 unequivocally stated in his Affidavit, Annexure P-3/T, that he does not want to continue with this case. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter and the complainant has duly sworn in affidavit (Annexure P-3/T) in this regard, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive, therefore, the FIR, alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the same, pending before the learned trial Court, may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners are liable to be tried as per the law and the present petition may be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has argued that the present petition may be allowed, in view of the Affidavit, Annexure P-3/T, sworn in by respondent No. 3.

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 Others vs. 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 extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the