The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings and FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially when the parties have already compromised the matter and the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

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.42 of 2017, dated 11.4.2017, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 (2) (i) 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3 (2) (V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, are that respondent No.2 solemnized marriage with Smt. Shanti Devi, in the year 2011, as per Hindu rites and customs. Smt. Shanti Devi's first marriage was solemnized with Raju son of Shr. Gurdabbaru, resident of Village Jaloan (Sarni), Post Office Paraisi, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, but they got divorced, who had a boy, namely, Meena Ram and a girl prosecutrix (name withheld), when respondent No.2 married with Smt. Shanti Devi, both children are residing with him. At the time of occurrence, respondent No.3 studied in 9th standard. On 9.4.2017, in the morning, when respondent No.1 with his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, woke up, respondent No.2 was not present in her room, when they were searched, she was not found. Respondent No.1 telephonically call to her mobile number 9857803669, told that a boy, namely, Ravi Kumar has taken away, on asking her, she did not know the address of Ravi's house and also did not tell the whereabouts and thereafter disconnected the phone. Respondent No.1 fully assured that her daughter was carried away by Ravi Kumar. Pursuant thereto, statement of respondent No.2 came to the Police Station for lodging FIR against the petitioner. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-6) dated 26th April, 2021, petitioner and respondent No.3 are married with whom they are living happily. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, 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 petition may be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the parties have entered into compromise and so, the proceedings pending before the learned Court below may be quashed.

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