The judgment established the principle that the inherent power under Section 482 should be used sparingly and with great caution, and that it should not be exercised to circumvent express provisions of law. It also emphasized that non-compoundable offences should not be an impediment to quashing the FIR if the facts and circumstances warrant it.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Pratap Singh Saingar, Smt. Omwati Sengar, Rajiv Singh Saingar, Ashok Kumar, Smt. Dolly @ Pratibha Singh and Vinod Kumar Sengar for quashing of FIR No. 0769/2015 dated 10.12.2015, under Section 406 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Badarpur on the basis of the compromise deed arrived at between petitioners and respondent No.2, namely, Rakesh Kumar on 12.01.2016.

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 SI B.D. Meena.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.3 and the daughter of respondent no.2 was to be solemnized on 27.11.2015. The engagement ceremony was completed with great pomp and show on 19.10.2015. On 22.10.2015, Pratap Singh called the complainant and asked him to come to Aligarh otherwise the marriage would not take place. When the complainant reached there, the groom’s side insisted that the marriage would take place at Aligarh and not at Delhi and the complainant and his family were harassed. On 28.10.2015, Mr. Pratap Singh demanded a Honda City car and when the complainant expressed his inability, Pratap Singh refused to solemnize the marriage. On 04.11.2015, a meeting was organized and there too, the petitioners completely refused to get the marriage solemnized even after repeated requests of the complainant.

The respondent no.2/complainant got registered the FIR in question against the petitioners. Thereafter, with the intervention of the family members, both the parties entered into a compromise and settled 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 compromise deed, the dispute between the parties has been settled by the intervention of the respectable persons of the society and there is nothing left between the parties. Both the parties have returned all the articles to each other and there is no dispute between them and they do not want any legal action. The respondent no.2 wishes to end all the further proceedings at this level. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 23.02.2016. In the affidavit, he 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 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 discu