Point of Law : 16.10 . 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.145/2021, dated 17.7.2021, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P. alongwith all consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., pending before the learned trial Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition, as per the prosecution story, are that respondent No.2/complainant made a complaint before the police alleging therein that on 16.7.2021, he alongwith his friend entered inside the rehabilitation centre, where he was working, as kitchen helper, after entering in the centre, the petitioner started using abusive language and misbehaving with him and was asking for one Aashish Sharma, who was admitted in the rehabilitation centre earlier. Respondent No.2 stated that Aashish Sharma, has gone to bring one patient and on this, all of sudden, petitioners took out a desi katta/pistol from his pocket and again started asking about Aashish Sharma. Thereafter, the petitioners thrown away the articles lying in the room and took out an amount of Rs.20,000/-, which were given to him by Aashish Sharma for the payment of rent and again threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR in question was registered. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise deed (Annexure P-2) stating therein that the complainant does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners. 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. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the parties have entered into compromise, so, the proceedings pending before the learned Court below may be quashed.

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record 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 w