The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing the abuse of the process of law, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes, and the need for amicable resolution of disputes.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Talvinder Singh, Sh. Sanjog Singh, Smt. Niwas Kaur, Smt. Narangi Kaur and Sh. Dheeraj Singh @ Sunny for quashing of FIR No.308/2013 dated 30.08.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Pooja Kaur before the Court of Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 28.10.2014.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by ASI Anil Dutt.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24.05.2009. After sometime of the marriage, the in-laws of the complainant started quarreling with her on petty matters for demand of dowry and they used to give threats to her that if their demands are not fulfilled they will burn her or throw her from the roof. The father-in-law of the complainant used to try to outrage her modesty. The husband of the complainant used to beat her. When the complainant used to go for her job, her mother-in-law use to send some anti-social persons to outrage her modesty.

Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered. The respondent no.2 also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner no.1. Later on, with the intervention of the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the parties to the present case, reached an amicable settlement and compromised their matter and in view of the same, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been withdrawn.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the joint statement of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 recorded before the said Mahila Court, the parties have amicable resolved their issues for a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/-which shall be paid in three installments by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2. The parties further agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. The first motion petition shall be filed within one month from the date of joint statement and Rs. 40,000/-shall be paid to respondent no.2 on the signing of the first motion petition. Another sum of Rs. 40,000/-shall be paid to respondent no.2 at the time of signing of the second motion petition and the remaining amount shall be paid on the quashing of the FIR in question. It is further agreed that the minor child namely baby Manpreet shall remain with the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.1 shall have no visitation rights with the child. It is also agreed that after the payment of Rs, 1,30,000/-, the respondent no.2 and the minor child shall not claim any maintenance from the petitioner no.1 in future. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 16.12.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. 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