The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on amicable resolution of disputes in matrimonial matters and the sparing exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal proceedings based on settlement between the parties.

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.118/1998 registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Harsh due to some matrimonial disputes. Thereafter, both the parties entered into a settlement as is evident from the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MAT. Appeal (F.C.) No. 126/2014. The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 04.08.2005 and respondent no. 2 has received the entire agreed amount as per the settlement. Thus, she does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners.

3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court. For her identification she has produced her Pan Card being no. AMWPJ2625C (original seen and returned). She submits that she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners and her marriage with petitioner no. 1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 04.08.2015 and as per the settlement, she has received the entire agreed amount. Thus, she has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioners and if the present petition is allowed, she has no objection.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, charges are framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence. She further submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case further against petitioners, 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.

5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to c