The court can invoke its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on mediation and compromise, as recognized in settled law.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Satyavir Sharma, Shyam Sunder Sharma, Shyam Lal Sharma, K.N. Pandey and Ashok Sharma for quashing of FIR No. 30 of 2012 dated 04.02.2012, under Sections 409/420/468/471/ 120B IPC registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura on the basis of mediation report of the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos. 2 & 3, namely, Brahman Samaj Sanstha (Regd.) through the president Sh. Mahender Singh Parashar and Brahman Samaj Sanstha (Regd.) through its general secretary Sh. Ramphal Sharma on 29.09.2015.

2. This Court vide order dated 16.07.2015, directed the parties in the present case to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi on 25.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. for a possible amicable settlement. The said mediation centre has submitted its report. As per the report, the petitioners have already paid an amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs to the society on 05.09.2012 through five cheques which has been adjusted as donation from the petitioners. It has been agreed that no further amount shall be payable by the petitioners to the Society and also that petitioners shall not claim the amount already paid. The respondents shall not oppose the present petition and shall cooperate in quashing the FIR in question. It has also been agreed that the parties shall not file any case/litigation etc. against each other or against the society in respect of the present dispute. Now no dispute remains between the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and the petitioners and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.

3. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

4. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) 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 continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:-

(i) Ends of justice.

(ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercis