Point of Law: High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

ORDER :

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. 166 of 2021, dated 10.08.2021, under Sections 354-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”), registered at Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, 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 on 10.08.2021, respondent No. 2/complainant, who is a student of L.L.B. fourth semester in Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, made a complaint against the petitioners, wherein it has been alleged that today around 12:30 P.M., when she was talking to the students in connection with entrance examination at Arts Block, the petitioners, who are members of ABVP student organization, came there and started staring and taunting her. Even, after completion of entrance examination, when she went to take her meal at pink pattle, the petitioners were already there and passed comments on her and when she opposed, they misbehaved with her. Consequently, F.I.R No. 166 of 2021, dated 10.08.2021, under Sections 354-A and 34 of IPC, came to be registered against the petitioners. However, now the parties have compromised the matter, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure P-2) and in order to maintain their relation cordial 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 (Annexure P-2), 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 act and conduct of the petitioners, the present petition be dismissed.

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 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.