ORDER :

1. 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. 105, dated 01.06.2013, under Sections 498A, 406, 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”) registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. alongwith all consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that marriage between Mukesh Sharma (son of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No. 3) and respondent No. 2/wife was solemnized on 02.12.2010 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of their wedlock one son namely, Master Kartik, was begotten. However, immediately after the marriage, differences arose between them and the wife has lodged a complaint against her husband and his family members, wherein allegations of harassment for bringing less dowry and maltreatment have been leveled. Consequently, F.I.R. No. 105, dated 01.06.2013, under Sections 498A, 406, 120B and 506 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioners. However, now the parties have settled their dispute amicably, vide Compromise Deed, placed on record, and as per terms of the Compromise Deed, they do not want to continue with the present case. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter vide compromise deed, no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive, therefore, the FIR, alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the same, may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has argued that taking into consideration the fact that parties have settled their dispute amicably, the present petition may be allowed.

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

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the records 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 vs. 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) I