The main legal principle established in the judgment is the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on amicable settlements, with the aim of preventing abuse of process of law and securing the ends of justice.

P.S. Teji, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Abhishek Manohar for quashing of FIR No. 297/2013 dated 15.09.2013, under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin on the basis of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) executed in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2, namely, Sh. Bhagwan Dass on 04.11.2015.

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 SI Bihari Lal.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that on 15.09.2013, the complainant and his neighbour Raju were coming on a motorcycle. At about 3:30, when they reached in front of Nizamuddin, then a car bearing No. DL4CAD-5440 came at a very high speed and hit their motorcycle. Thus, the complainant and Raju fell on the ground and sustained injuries.

The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2013 and released on bail on 02.01.2015. During the course of the trial, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement with each other.

4. Respondent No. 2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU, it is agreed that respondent no. 2 is absolutely medically fit after receiving medical treatment at AIIMS Trauma Centre. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall pay for the treatment and medical expenses of respondent no. 2 which has been computed at Rs. 15,000/- by respondent no. 2. It is also agreed that in addition to the medical expenses, petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims, demands and compensation for the injuries received by respondent no. 2 due to the accident. It is also agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall not press the complaint which has culminated into the FIR in question and that he shall cooperate with the petitioner to get the FIR in question compounded/quashed. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall file applications, affidavits, petitions in the trial Court, Delhi as well as in the High Court of Delhi for getting the FIR in question compounded/quashed. It is also agreed that respondent no. 2 shall cooperate with the petitioner in whatever manner. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall, apart from all expenses as explained above, bear all costs of litigation including travel, boarding and lodging of the respondent no. 2 and his representatives. It is also agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- in the form of cheque bearing No. 179819 drawn on Punjab National Bank favoring respondent no. 2 shall be paid to respondent no. 2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that the said amount shall be tendered to respondent no. 2 or his duly authorized nominee or power of attorney holder before this Court on compounding/quashing/complete closure of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall not file any other claim in motor accident claims tribunal for claiming compensation from the insurance company on account of injuries received them in the accident. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. 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. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and have settled all the disputes with him. He further stated that he 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 ob