The wide and unfettered inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, and to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") for quashing of F.I.R No.124/2018, dated 12.5.2018, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P, pending before the learned Court below.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.2-Parveen Kumar son of Shri Lekh Ram, purchased a vehicle bearing No.HP-23C-0773 (truck) from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd; after paying a sum of Rs. 11,75,000/-, when the complainantrespondent No.2 demanded papers of the vehicle from the Company, the official of the said Company did not hand over the same to him. On inquiry, made by the complainant, he came to know that the truck in question belongs to one Shri Chaman Lal, against whom, the company has maintained case against him and got released the vehicle in question from the learned Court below, subject to the condition that the truck will not be sold, but the said Company has sold the same to the complainant-Praveen Kumar. It is further alleged that the Company is neither handing over the documents of the truck to the complainant nor the truck in question is being registered in his name. The complainant narrated the whole incident to the police, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. Thereafter, petitioners No.1 and 2 maintained an application, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Trial Court, however, the same was rejected, vide order dated 21.5.2018. Thereafter on 23.5.2018, respondent No.2, offered settlement of the dispute inter se the parties by proposing the company to refund an amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- (rupees eleven lac seventy thousand only) alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000/- (rupees two lac eighty thousand only). The vehicle was also proposed to be handed over to the company by the subsequent purchaser i.e. respondent No.2-Parveen Kumar. The said proposal of respondent No.2, was accepted by the company and vide Compromise Deed dated 25.5.2018 (Annexure P-10), the company has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- (rupees fourteen lac fifty thousand only) to respondent No.2 on or before 8.6.2018 through Demand Draft/Cheque/RTGS for return of the vehicle in question in the same condition. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-10) and do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-10), no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioners and the FIR/Challan, may be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the offence is not compoundable, so 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 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 rigi