The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of law, especially in cases involving predominantly civil matters, and the need to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. sparingly and with great caution.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ms. Poonam Kohli for quashing of FIR No. 96 of 2013 dated 06.03.2008, under Sections 452/427/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli on the basis of the Joint Statement of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, namely, Mr. Ramesh Gupta on 26.11.2012.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent nos. 2, present in the Court has been identified to be the First-informant/ Complainant in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of this present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant, namely, Harmugam on the allegation that on 13.05.2013, he along with his friend Hira Lal s/o Lakshman Ram were going to the RML hospital. When they were crossing the road, while the complainant was stopping the traffic with his hand signals, a driver-petitioner hit the friend of the complainant i.e. Hira Lal as he was driving rashly with great speed. Hira Lal suffered injuries on his leg and backbone. Thereafter, the family of the petitioner started putting pressure on Hira Lal and his family members to not take any legal action against the petitioner due to which no action was taken by him against the petitioner on 13.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in question.

The police officials have filed a charge sheet and the matter is pending before the Ld. M.M., Patiala House Courts, Delhi. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 along with other legal heirs of the deceased Hira Lal had also filed MACT claim petition bearing No. 192 of 2013 and they were awarded compensation of Rs. 15,80,640/- vide an award dated 13.05.2014. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the parties entered into an out of Court settlement.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the Joint statement, both parties have agreed to take divorce by way mutual consent and the Respondent nos. 2 & 3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their affidavits dated 27.09.2014. In the affidavits, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have stated that they 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.

5. 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.”

6. 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 acc