P L KASI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this Petition to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Respondent.

(2.) LEARNED Government Advocate (Crl. Side) takes notice for the respondent.

(3.) THE Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 has held that, -THE decision of Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri.L.J. 165 does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings of F.I.R. or complaint as vested in S.482 or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THErefore, 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 depend-ing upon the facts and circumstances of each case whethe r to exercise or not such a power-.