Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 121 dated 14.7.2007, got registered by respondent No. 2 against them under Sections 376, 511, 452, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Tarantaran, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P -2) having entered between them.
(2.) THE impugned FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 with the allegations that on 14.7.2007, both the petitioners attempted to commit rape with her daughter Gurmeet Kaur (respondent No. 3) in the house of her friend Kanta when she was alone. It has been contended that the parties have settled the dispute amicably with the intervention of respectable and the complainant as well as prosecutrix Gurmeet Kaur will not pursue the aforesaid case any more. Compromise (Annexure P -2) has been placed on record containing the recitals of the compromise having been entered between the parties as well as the factum of the complainant as well as prosecutrix being not interested to pursue the case against the petitioners. Upon notice of motion, complainant respondent No. 2 and prosecutrix respondent No. 3 i.e. Paramjit Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur respectively have filed their joint reply wherein they have authenticated the compromise and have also stated that they have no objection in the quashing of the impugned FIR against the petitioners.
(3.) BY now it is fully settled that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers can quash the proceedings if it finds that allowing of any such proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that ends of justice require that the proceedings be quashed. In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami, : AIR 1977 SC 1489, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature yet the Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.;