Point of Law: Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.245/2020, dated 26.10.2020, under Sections 376, 376(2) (n), 452, 497 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 Smt. Kalyani Devi (herein after referred to as “ the complainant” ), who alleged that her first marriage was solemnized with person namely Vinod Kumar, r/o village Maryani and out of their wedlock, one girl was born. She alleged that in the year, 2013, she solemnized second marriage with person namely Pawan Kumar, r/o Roura, Bilaspur and out of their wedlock, one boy (7 years old )was born. She alleged that since above named Pawan Kumar deserted her and present petitioner came in her contact, she started living with him and decided to marry him. She alleged that present petitioner had been residing with her since 2017, but when she became pregnant and asked the petitioner to solemnize marriage, he started making excuses and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3. Vide order dated 11.10.2022, this Court while directing the respondent-State to verify the factum with regard to compromise also deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2 in the court so that correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record is ascertained.

4. Though instructions of respondent-State are awaited, but respondent No.2 has come present and is being represented by Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. Respondent No.2 Smt. Kalyani Devi, states on oath that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them. She states that FIR sought to be quashed is a result of misunderstanding and since she has already solemnized love marriage with the petitioner in a temple and one issue has also been born out of their wedlock, coupled with the fact that petitioner is taking good care of her and child, she does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case FIR as well consequent proceedings, are quashed and set-aside and accused is acquitted. While admitting the contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signature on the same. Her statement made on oath is taken on record.

5. Having heard aforesaid statement made by respondent No.2-complainant, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though parties have compromised the matter, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, prayer made on his behalf for quashing of FIR deserves to be rejected. While inviting attention of this court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases 46, Mr. Bhatnagar, contends that otherwise also, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC may not quash the proceedings in heinous crimes like rape. However, he fairly states that keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2, made on oath, there a