The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has wide powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings, and these powers should be exercised in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The parties present in person, through their Advocates, have jointly moved the present application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for placing on record the Compromise Deed (Annexure A-1) , whereby the parties have entered into a compromise and as per the terms of said compromise, they do not want to continue the litigation against each other.

2. Today, party No. 1 has paid a demand draft, as mentioned in the agreement, Annexure A-1, which has been duly received by party No. 2. Learned counsel for parties state that as the parties have entered into a compromise therefore, complaint, dated 26.04.2013, order dated 26.04.2013 and F.I.R. No. 127, dated 27.04.2013 may be quashed.

3. 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 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 does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

4. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another , (2010) 7 SCC 667, have held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Their Lordships have further held that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law and the complaint against the appellants was quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:

[27] A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others , (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the