The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings based on the settlement agreement between the parties in matrimonial cases, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes and to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seek quashing of FIR No.440/2013 registered at Police Station Pandev Nagar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt.Mamta, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic violence having arisen between the parties pursuant to her marriage with the petitioner. The matter is pending with the police for investigation. Meanwhile, the good senses prevailed and respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have resolved their disputes vide reconciliation proceedings arrived at the Family Courts, Aligarh, UP. Consequent thereto, the petitioner and respondent No.2 started living together as husband and wife for the last 1½ years. Thus, respondent No.2 has no complaints whatsoever against any of the petitioner and she does not want to pursue the case further against him.

3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. She does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that she and petitioner are living together happily as husband and wife as they have resolved all their disputes. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and submits that she has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner. The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.8 of the petition. Therefore, prays that to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that matter is pending for investigation and matter is at the initial stage of investigation. He further submits that present case is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 has settled all the disputes with petitioner and does not wish to pursue the case further against him or his family members, no purpose would be served if the petitioner is directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if this Court allows the present petition.

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 princ