The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interest of justice can be met by quashing criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the impact on society, and the public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioners for quashing of F.I.R No. 79/2013, dated 12.09.2013, under Sections 341, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as "IPC"), registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, 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 08.09.2013, around 5:30 P.M., when respondent No. 2 was going to throw cow-dung, suddenly, petitioner No. 1 came there, showed knife to her and tried to commit rape upon her. However, respondent No. 2 had managed to escape from him. After the said incident, respondent No. 2 was so scared that she could not disclose the incident to anyone, but, two to three days' later, when she came to know about the fact that the incident had come to the knowledge of the villagers, she mustered courage and narrated the entire incident to her mother. Thereafter, the parents of respondent No. 2 went to the house of the petitioners to discuss the matter, but, the petitioners abused the parents of respondent No. 2 and threatened them with dire consequences. Consequently, FIR No. 79/2013, dated 12.09.2013, under Sections 341, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioners. However, now the parties have compromised the matter, vide Affidavit (Annexure P-2) and in order to maintain their relations cordial, they do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter vide Affidavit (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 Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the present petition deserves dismissal

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 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 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. W