The main legal principle established in the judgment is the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have reached an amicable settlement, especially in matrimonial disputes, to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice.

P.S. Teji, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Smt. Salma Begum, Sh. Mohd. Hasim and Sh. Mohd. Rizwan for quashing of FIR No. 308/2009 dated 14.10.2009, under Sections 307, 323, 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at between petitioners along with Mohd. Ilyas and respondent no.2 & respondent no.3, namely, Sh. Mohd. Yahya and Smt. Reshma Begum, respectively, on 23.08.2015 at New Delhi.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.3, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by SI Jagsharan.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between respondent no. 2 and respondent no.3 was solemnized on 14.05.2006 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. With the passage of time, the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the complainant started to pressurize the respondent no.2 to divorce the respondent no.3 for not bringing Rs. 1 lacs cash from her parents. The mother-in-law of the complainant made a demand of Rs. 1 lacs and a Santro car from her otherwise she told her that she would not be allowed in the matrimonial home. The complainant asked her in-laws not to interfere with her married life, on which she was beaten up by her mother-in-law. Mohd. Hashim also threatened the respondent no.2 to leave the house with his wife. He gave beatings to the respondent no.2 and the mother-in-law of the complainant caught hold of her hair and gave her a kick in the abdomen. On 07.09.2009, the brother-in-law of the complainant dragged her in a room and told her that today he will kill her. The complainant tried to run away but her mother-in-law gave a mug of kerosene oil to the Jamil and Jamil poured the oil on the complainant and threw a match stick on her body. Then, Mohd. Hashim set her on fire due to which the complainant suffered from burn injuries.

Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.3 lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the direction of the Ld. MM, the FIR in question was registered. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. After the completion of the investigation, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. The charges under Section 498-A, 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC were framed against the petitioners. Later on, with the intervention of family, neighbours and friends etc. the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and resolved their issues.

4. Respondent No.3, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of family, neighbours and friends. As per the MOU, Sh. Mohd. Ilyas, agreed to withdraw his public notice dated 11.09.2009 regarding disowning the respondent nos.2 & 3 from all his movable and immovable properties vide public notice dated 14.08.2015 in Rashtriya Sahara Hindi Newspaper. It is also agreed that Mohd. Ilyas and petitioner no. 2, as decided, have given a separate flat bearing no. C-161, measuring 80 sq. yards situated at 4th Floor, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025 to the respondent nos. 2 & 3, so that respondent nos. 2 & 3 can live peacefully along with their children. It is also agreed that respondent nos. 2 & 3 are residing in the said flat and that the documents of the said flat were executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of respondent nos. 2 & 3 jointly. It is further agreed that Sh. Mohd. Ilyas has transferred the complete share of property which is lying in Delhi and here onwards the respondent nos. 2 & 3 individually and jointly shall not claim any right or title over the property lying in Delhi in the name of Sh. Mohd. Ilyas and the petitioners. It is also agreed that Sh. Mohd. Ilyas and the petitioners have also given another plot admeasuring 100 sq. yards from 200 sq. yards of plo