The main legal principle established is that the court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have settled the dispute amicably and for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, particularly in 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 for quashing of F.I.R. No. 87/13, dated 01.05.2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, 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 filed a complaint against the petitioner, stating therein that on 30.04.2013, respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix) alongwith her grandmother had gone to attend the marriage and did not return back. As per the complainant, her daughter was kidnapped by the present petitioner. Consequently, FIR No. 87/2013, dated 01.05.2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the petitioner. However, as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had fled away and solemnized marriage and came back home in the month of August, 2014. Now the parties have compromised the matter and as per the complainant, who is mother of the prosecutrix, she had lodged the report inadvertently and do not want to pursue the case against her son-in-law/petitioner, since her daughter alongwith her three children are living happily with the petitioner and in this regard, her statement has also been sworn in by way of affidavit, Annexure P-5. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter and the complainant has sworn in by way of affidavit that she has inadvertently lodged the complaint against the petitioner, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive, since the petitioner alongwith respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix) and his three children is living happily, hence, the FIR, alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the same, pending before the learned trial Court, may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 has argued that the present petition may be allowed, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

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 Another 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 i