The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide and unfettered inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings based on genuine settlements of disputes, in order to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present 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. 23/2019, dated 14.06.2019, under Sections 498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as "IPC"), registered at Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial Court.

2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respective parties stated at Bar that they have finally settled their dispute amicably and they do not want to continue with the litigation and to this effect they have entered into an agreement, which is taken on record and exhibited as Ex. X-1.

3. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that marriage between petitioner-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 08.04.2017. However, after the marriage they could not adjust with each other and ultimately on 15.05.2019 respondent-wife lodged a complaint against the petitioner-husband and his family for harassing her and demanding dowry from her. Consequently, F.I.R No. 23/2019, dated 14.06.2019, under Sections 498-A, read with Section 34 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioners However, now the parties have settled their dispute amicably, vide Compromise Deed, Ex.X-1, dated 10.7.2021, whereby respondent-wife by way of one time settlement, settled the dispute with petitioner-husband and decree of mutual divorce stood granted by the learned Court below, so that both the parties can live peacefully. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter vide compromise deed, Ex.X-1, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings alive, therefore, the FIR, alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the same, pending before the learned trial Court, may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the present petition deserves dismissal.

6. 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.

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

8. 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