The main legal point established is the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between the parties, to prevent 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. Shakila, Sh. Nashir Ahmad, Sh. Mangoo Khan and Ms. Mehrunisha for quashing of FIR No. 378/2013 dated 30.10.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Roshanara @ Roshni.

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 her counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between Rashid Ahmad and the respondent no.2 on 12.04.1992. Right from the very first day of the marriage, the in-laws of the complainant started to harass her. The in-laws of the complainant demanded a motorcycle. When the complainant refused for the same, she was taunted day and night. The three children of the complainant were born in her parental home only. To throw the complainant out of the matrimonial home, the parents-in-law of the complainant used to threaten her and assault her with iron rods. The in-laws of the complainant constantly asked her to bring Rs. 20 lacs then only she could live peacefully.

Thereafter, the complainant got registered the FIR in question against the petitioners. Later on, the husband of the complainant expired on 14.04.2014. During the pendency of the case in FIR in question, both the parties to the petition mutually settled all their matrimonial disputes amicably.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of family members, well-wishers and friends of both parties. As per the settlement, it is agreed that respondent no.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed and that she has given an affidavit to that effect. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 12.01.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she 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 whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direc