The central legal principle established is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, based on settlement agreements between the parties, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl.M.A. 4538/2016 (for exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Crl.M.C. No. 1054/2016

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.593/2014 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Babita, consequent upon certain matrimonial issues and domestic violence having arisen between the parties pursuant to her marriage with the petitioner No.1. After the registration of FIR, the matter is still pending for investigation with the police. Meanwhile, the good senses prevailed and respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 have resolved their disputes vide settlement/agreement dated 13.01.2015 before the Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Consequent thereto, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 started living together as husband and wife with effect from 13.01.2015 itself. Thus, respondent No.2 has no complaints whatsoever against any of the petitioners and she does not want to pursue the case further against them.

3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. She does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that she and petitioner No.1 are living together happily as husband and wife as they have resolved all their disputes. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and submits that she has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioners. The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.21 of the petition. Therefore, she prays that to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after registration of FIR it is pending investigation with the police. He further submits that present case is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 has settled all the disputes with petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case further against them, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if this Court allows the present petition.

5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

“58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a rece