Point of Law: Quash of Criminal proceedings – Compromise between parties - High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour

ORDER :

The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”) for quashing of F.I.R No.88 of 2020, dated 21.11.2020, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, 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 child victim alongwith her mother i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi and her father Sh. Rajesh Kumar, came to the Police Station and made a written complaint wherein Rajesh Kumar-complainant made a statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging therein that he is an agriculturist by profession. It is further alleged in the complaint that he is having two daughters, one son and child victim is his eldest daughter, who is about 15 years and studying in 9th Class. On 16.11.2020, when her daughter came back to her home from the petitioner’s house, his wife Smt. Kamla Devi suspected that the child victim is pregnant and she disclosed this fact to the complainant. It is further alleged that when his wife enquired, child victim disclosed that the petitioner had made physical relation with her several times due to which, she became pregnant. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR in question was registered. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise deed dated 1.6.2021 (Annexure P-II) stating therein that the complainant does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners-accused. 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 matte