Chander Bhusan Barowalia DECISION
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
1. 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. 48 of 2012 dated 23.2.2012, under Sections 451, 447, 427, 342, 336, 147, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that on 23.2.2012, at about 7:00 a.m, when respondent No. 2, was at his home, his son, Anil Kumar, went to the shop and told him telephonically that in front of his house, 10-12 people came with poclain machine and started to destruct his lentil. After some time, respondent No. 2, came on the spot and enquired from his tenant that petitioner-Kewal Singh, resident of Village Manpura, came with poclain machine alongwith 10-12 persons in his rented accommodation, knock down three room and destruct his lentil. Due to this act of petitioner-Kewal Singh, life of complainant's tenant was in danger and also threatened him to do away with his life. On the basis of which, respondent No. 2 reported the matter to the police and FIR was lodged. Now, the parties have entered into a compromise, vide Compromise Deed, dated 12.9.2018 and they do not want to pursue the case against each other. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the parties have compromised the matter, vide Compromise Deed, dated 12.9.2018, no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioners 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. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, has argued that the parties have entered into compromise and 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, MANU/SC/0230/2003 : (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 (MANU/SC/1090/1998 : (1998) 5 SCC 749), this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the Court wi........