The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have settled their disputes, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh cases.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.126/2013 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 507 IPC read with Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case and case FIR No. 232/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at the same police station was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Pooja Saxena against petitioners. And case FIR Nos. 109/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 379/380/466/467/471/120-B/34 IPC and 13/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/474/477/120-B IPC were registered against respondent no. 2 / complainant at PS-Subzi Mandi on the complaint of the petitioner no.1. Thereafter, both the parties have settled their disputes vide settlement dated 27.01.2015 and consequent thereto, marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 31.08.2015. As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as full and final settlement. Out of which Rs.35,00,000/- has been already been paid and Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court.

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that FIRs mentioned above registered against the complainant / respondent no. 2 have already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court today itself. Thus, since the parties have inter se settled their disputes, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further against the petitioners.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court alongwith her counsel named above. For her identification she has produced Voter Identity Card being no. NCR1488527 issued by Election Commission of India. Original seen and returned. Ld. Counsel on instructions does not dispute whatever stated by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that all the cases mentioned above have been settled inter se between the parties and consequent thereto marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 31.08.2015. He further submits that as per the settlement, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- has already been paid and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be paid today in the Court. However, since the DDs of the said amount have become staled, same have been returned to the petitioner no.1, who is personally present in the Court. The said petitioner has undertaken to hand over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 during the course of the day. Ld. Counsel submits that since the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner is agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- today itself by way of cheque, respondent no. 2 has no objection, if the present petition is allowed subject to realization of the cheque.

5. On the other hand, ld. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet. However, the charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case further against them, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that case FIR No. 232/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS-Roop Nagar against the petitioners has already been quashed in Crl. M.C. 4091/2015.

7. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (