The main legal point established is the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in cases of predominantly civil nature, especially in matrimonial disputes, 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, Bhagwat Kishore, Shanti Devi, Pushpa, Anil, Jai Kishore, Hem Lata, Eram Fatima @ Neena Devi, Nadeem, Manju, Darshan Batra and Meenakshi @ Gudiya for quashing of FIR No.52/2010 dated 12.02.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station K.W. Camp/Model Town on the basis of the compromise arrived at between petitioners and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Seema.

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 IO, PS Model Town.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 19.01.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the in-laws of the complainant started demanding more dowry from her. The mother-in-law of the complainant took all the money given to her in shagun. In February, 2008, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant took all her jewellery and silver articles. The sisters-in-law of the complainant and their husbands used to instigate the husband of the complainant and thus he used to beat up the complainant. The complainant used to work as a servant in her matrimonial home and she was given very little food to survive. On 29.10.2008, due to some altercation, the sisters-in-law of the complainant caught hold of her hair and dragged her to the floor and started beating her with fists and blows. On 01.11.2008, the in-laws of the complainant threw her out of the matrimonial home forcefully.

Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint on the basis of which the FIR in question was lodged against the accused persons/petitioners and they were summoned and were released on bail. The respondent no.2 has also filed a criminal complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 12 D.V. Act and due to intervention of the common friends, relatives etc. the Court concerned made a compromise order.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the statement of the respondent no.2 recorded on 21.11.2012 before the ld. MM, Mahila Courts, Rohini Courts, Delhi, the parties shave resolved their issued due to the intervention of Court. It has been agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 6.25 lacs to the respondent no.2 in three installments. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 shall file for divorce by way of mutual consent. The amount of settlement shall be paid as enunciated in the statement. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 30.10.2014 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 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 cri