The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent powers under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of securing the ends of justice and considering genuine settlements in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code") for quashing of F.I.R No. 158/2018, dated 30.11.2018, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal code (for short "IPC"), registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi, 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 on 30.11.2018, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jawalamukhi had telephonically informed the Police that an accident case has come in the Hospital. When police inquired into the matter, Smt. Sudershana Devi, alleged witness of the accident, had disclosed the police that on 30.11.2018, around 7:30 p.m., she was present in the shop of her son. In the meantime, a scooty coming from Dehra side, lost its control and fell on the road, owing to which pillion rider of scooty sustained injuries on his head and face. As per Smt. Sudershana Devi, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the present petitioner. Accordingly, FIR No. 158/2018, dated 30.11.2018, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioner. However, now the parties have entered into a compromise (Annexure P-3) and in order to maintain their relations cordial, they do not want to continue with the case. 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-3), no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, FIR, alongwith consequent proceedings, arising out of the FIR, pending before the learned Court below may be quashed and set aside. Even otherwise, as per the statement of respondent No. 2 the accident has occurred as a street dog had come in middle of the road.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the offence of rash and negligent driving on public way is offence against the society and it cannot be compounded/quashed on the basis of settlement between the offender and victim, so the present petition may be dismissed.

5. 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.

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire records 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