The main legal point established is the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings based on a settlement between the parties, in order 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, Sh. Ankit Taneja, Smt. Usha, Shikha Sethi and Sh. Gagan Sethi for quashing of FIR No.224/2012 dated 02.08.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar on the basis of the mediation report arrived at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Nidhi Taneja on 13.04.2015.

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 her counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 14.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. The parents of the complainant had spent around 22 lacs in the marriage but her husband and in-laws were not happy and after the marriage, they all started harassing and torturing the complainant for dowry. The accused persons even tried to kill the complainant 2-3 times. When the father of the complainant came to her matrimonial house to talk to her in-laws, the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the complainant took a house on rent but after that also her husband and her in-laws kept on threatening her.

The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint alleging cruelty against the petitioners which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners. The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint under Section 12 D.V. Act against all the petitioners and also filed an execution in the said complaint. The respondent no.2 also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner no.1 also filed a petition for divorce against the respondent no.2 which has already been dismissed for default. Subsequently, the parties compromised and resolved all their disputes.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report, it has been agreed that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay a total sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs to respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims qua istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future) and permanent alimony. It is agreed that the said amount shall be paid as enunciated in the said mediation report and that the said payment if made by way of DD, then the petitioner no.1 shall get the same prepared in the name of “Nidhi Kapoor”. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioner no.1 and his family members in quashing of the FIR in question. It is agreed that the parties shall withdraw their respective cases from the Courts concerned within 15 days from the recording of the statement of the parties in first motion for divorce. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 02.04.2016 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