The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in appropriate cases to meet the ends of justice, even in non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes, if the parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 240/2008 dated 10.11.2008 under section 279 IPC and under section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Shimla.

2. According to the petitioner, case has been registered against him under section 279 IPC and under section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act bearing FIR No. 240/2008 dated 10.11.2008. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Shimla. The case is pending before him for recording of evidence.

3. Kanwar Virender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the matter has been compromised and affidavit of Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman has been placed on record. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the matter has been compromised. There was no undue influence and pressure upon him to enter into compromise.

4. The Court is of the considered view that since the matter has been compromised; no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioner.

5. 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 Foods 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] In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."

6. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 have held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Their Lordships have further held that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of