The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide ambit of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings or FIR, emphasizing the importance of securing the ends of justice and encouraging genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

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 petitioner-complainant for quashing of F.I.R. No. 47/2015, dated 17.06.2015, under Section 498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Chhota Shimla, District Shimla, 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 the marriage of the petitioner-complainant was solemnized with Sh. Deepak Manta on 12.07.2012 at Shimla and after the marriage her husband, father in law and mother in law started ill-treating her on one pretext or the another. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint at Police Station, Shimla East, as such, F.I.R. No. 47/2015, dated 17.06.2015, under Section 498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against her husband, father in law and mother in law. However, now with sincere efforts and interventions of the families and friends of the parties, the petitioner and her husband are again started living together in harmony and want to live happy and successful married life, as such, they have compromised the matter and the petitioner wants to withdraw the FIR against her husband and in-laws. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the petitioner and her husband are living happy and harmonious life, 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 respondents are liable to be tried as per the law and the present petition may be dismissed.

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

6. 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 view 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, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

(15) In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code