The court emphasized the importance of securing the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of law, particularly in cases with predominantly civil character, and justified the exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings to 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. Dilbagh Singh and Sh. Amit Gehlot for quashing of FIR No.246/2014 dated 13.04.2014, under Sections 323/451/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka North on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding executed in between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Sunil Kumar on 04.03.2015.

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 Ved Parkash.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that on 13.04.2014 at about 4.30 PM, accused persons, came to the complainant’s office (Sunil Store, C-8, Sector 17, Dwarka, Delhi) and started quarrelling with the complainant. The alleged quarrel was with regard to the fact that the complainant sold a certain property without paying commission to the commission agents (accused persons). After a heated exchange of words, petitioner no.2/co-accused called out to some boys who came in and started beating the complainant and the petitioner no.2/co-accused held the complainant by the collar and threatened him to pay the commission to the accused persons. Petitioner no.2/co-accused then took out a pistol after which the complainant made a phone call to the police following which all the accused persons and their associates fled away.

Thereafter, the respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. During the course of investigation following the registration of the FIR, 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 with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society and that respondent no.2 is ready to pay back the borrowed amount from the petitioners and with that nothing shall remain due towards each other. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall withdraw the FIR in question and shall cooperate in the quashing of the same without any further delay or demands. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall not raise any demand against the respondent no.2 in future in view of this settlement. It is also agreed that both parties shall withdraw all the pending cases and complaints against each other from the Courts of law. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall not file any complaint, civil or criminal or civil cases against the respondent no.2 or any of his family members in the future. Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 13.08.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that he 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 he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. 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 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