The main legal point established is the need for amicable resolution of disputes, the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law, and secure ends of justice.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Wasi Haider, Sh. Wali Haider, Smt. Shahnaz Fatima and Sh. Raza Haider for quashing of FIR No. 7/2014 dated 08.01.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Marg on the basis of mediation report arrived at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, New Delhi between petitioner nos.1 & 2 and respondent no.2, Smt. Amreen Bano on 31.10.2015.

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 in the FIR in question by her counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24.03.2012 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. On the second day of the marriage, the mother-in-law of the complainant took all her jewellery. The father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the complainant started taunting her for bringing less dowry. He brother-in-law of the complainant used to abuse and beat the complainant as he demanded Rs. 4 lacs from the father of the complainant. On 29.08.2013, with the connivance of the brother-in-law and the father-in-law of the complainant, the petitioner no.1 went missing.

On 29.08.2013, a missing report was lodged by the respondent no.2 with the P.S. Tilak Marg to the effect that the petitioner no.1 is missing since 27.08.2013.the petitioner no.1 gave divorce according to the Shariyat Mulsim Law to respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 filed a petition under Section 12 r/w Section 18,19,20,22 and 23 of the PWDV Act. The respondent no.2 also filed an application under Section 23(1) and 23(2) r/w Section 12(1) of the DV Act. The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint to the CAW Cell which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners. The petitioners moved application for the grant of anticipatory bail. During the hearing of the said application, the petitioner no.1 paid to respondent no.2 a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. Thereafter, during the proceedings of the complaint case under DV Act, the matter was referred to the mediation centre where the matter was amicably settled.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report, it has been agreed that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 shall take divorce by mutual consent as per their customs and Musilm Law. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay Rs. 3.14 Lakhs to respondent no.2 including a sum of Rs.14,000/-as Mehar as full and final settlement towards stridhan, dowry articles, past, present and future alimony and maintenance. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay Rs. 1 Lakh out of the settlement amount to the respondent no.2 through Demand Draft on or before 17.11.2015. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay further amount of 1.14 Lakhs on or before 27.01.2016 to respondent no.2 through demand draft. It is also agreed that on the receipt of the payment amount of Rs. 1.14 Lakhs, respondent no.2 shall withdraw the petition under 12 D.V. Act and the execution thereof on 27.01.2016. It is also agreed that the parties shall go for quashing proceedings of the FIR in question on or before 28.02.2016 and the complainant shall cooperate in quashing of the same. It is also agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 1 Lakh shall be paid in the form of DD by the petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question before this Court. It is also agreed that after the full and final payment, the parties shall not have any claim of any sort against each other or their family members. It is also agreed that the parties shall not file any case against each other or their family members after this settlement. Respondent No.2 affirmed the content