JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

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. 182/16, dated 01.07.2016, under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, 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 petitioner had filed RSA No. 204/2013 against the judgments passed by learned Courts below before this Court and this Court vide order dated 03.03.2016, passed interim order restraining respondent No. 2 from raising construction and changing the nature of the suit land. However, despite interim order, respondent No. 2 demolished the Khokhas existing on the suit land. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 14.03.2016 directed the police authorities to ensure the compliance of order dated 03.03.2016. The police authorities in supervision of S.I., Incharge Rewalsar, visited the spot and directed respondent No. 2 to stop construction. Respondent No. 2 again violated the orders by putting tin/PVC sheets in order to conceal further construction. On 21.06.2016, the petitioner made a complaint to the police authorities, wherein it has been alleged that respondent No. 2 is not a law abiding citizen and has taken the law in his own hand and is still continuing with the illegal construction, consequently, F.I.R No. 182/16, dated 01.07.2016, came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has also proceeded against respondent No. 2 under Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC before this Court. During the proceedings in the said application, the matter was ordered to be listed before the learned Mediator to see whether the matter can be compromised and due to sincere efforts made by learned Mediator, now the parties have entered into a compromise (Annexure P-2) and in order to maintain their relation cordial, they do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2), no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive, 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 respondent No. 2 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 records 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 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 invoki