Point of Law: Section 482 preserves inherent powers of High Court to prevent an abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in High Court.

ORDER :

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 15 of 2018, dated 15.2.2018, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”) and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, 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, as per the prosecution story, are that on 15.2.2018, when both petitioners were travelling on motorcycle bearing No.HP36C-8527 going back to their house from the Institute of petitioner No.2, was sitting on back seat, as a pillion rider, when they reached near Loret College Kathog, all of sudden a stray dog came in between the road and a bus was also crossing, petitioner No.1 was left with no other option, but to apply the brakes and on application of the brakes, the motorcycle skids and got imbalanced, as such petitioner No.2, fallen down on the road and suffered injuries. Both petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2-injured are related to each other, as real brother and sister. Pursuant thereto, statement of Smt. Krishna Devi, came to the Police Station for lodging FIR against the petitioner. Now, petitioner No.2 entered into a compromise, on the basis of Compromise Deed (Annexure P-4), dated 13th October, 2021, stated that she does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner 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. 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 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 t