The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes 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. (Oral):--

Crl. M.A.No. 15789/2015 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Crl.M.C. No. 4445/2015

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 345/2014 registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, 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 submit that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, namely, Ms.Priyanka Sharma, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties. The case is at the initial stage of investigation pending with Investigating Officer. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have amicably settled their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide settlement/agreement dated 06.05.2014, for a total sum of Rs. 3.50 Lac. As per the said settlement, Rs. 1.00 Lac paid on 25.05.2014 and two instalments of Rs. 0.75 Lac each were paid at the time of recording first motion petition and second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent and the balance amount of Rs. 1.00 Lac is paid today in the Court, which facts have not been disputed by the respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that consequent to the said settlement, marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved vide decree of mutual divorce dated 13.07.2015 under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue her case further against the petitioners.

4. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court alongwith her counsel named above and she has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. The learned counsel under instructions does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the present matter has been amicably settled, marriage between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 13.07.2015, she has received the entire agreed amount and has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner No. 1 and his family members. Respondent No. 2 states that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the case is at the initial stage of investigation with Investigating Officer. She 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.

6. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. 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