The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Manjeet for quashing of FIR No.1111/2006 dated 06.12.2006, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC registered at Police Station Najafgarh on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2 & 3 namely, Nabi Hasan and Jalina Khatoon, respectively on 14.10.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent nos.2 & 3, present in the Court have been identified to be the victims in the present petition by their counsel.

3. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the respondent nos.2 & 3. The respondent nos.2 &3 shall not claim any compensation before any forum against the petitioner. The respondent nos.2 & 3 agreed to cooperate in the quashing of the FIR in question. Respondent nos.2 &3 affirmed the terms of the said report and of their individual affidavits dated 15.10.2015. As per the said affidavits, the respondents have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statements of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioner and have settled all the disputes with him. They further stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

4. In Gian Singh v. 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 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. 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, or

(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 exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences o