The court's decision emphasized the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences based on an amicable settlement, to prevent abuse of the 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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Aakaash Asthana for quashing of FIR No.1511/2015 dated 10.12.2015, under Sections 279/337 IPC registered at Police Station Saket on the basis of Memorandum of understanding executed between the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 6, namely, Smt. Sanjeeda Begum, Sh. Shafik Ahmad, Sh. Shahrukh Ahmad and Master Jameel Ahmad and Master Sameer Ahmad, both under the guardianship of respondent no. 2, on 10.02.2016

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 2 also as guardian for respondent nos. 5 & 6 present in the Court have been identified to be the LRs of the deceased/victim in the FIR in question by SI Rajdeep Singh.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 13.12.2015, the petitioner was going on his motorcycle “Rajdoot” bearing registration no. URW 4387, from Malviya Nagar metro station towards Max Hospital, wherein Late Sh. Salim was crossing the road and the accident took place between the him and the petitioner. The petitioner took Sh. Salim to Max Hospital. However, he was later transferred to AIIMS hospital. On 06.12.2015, when the victim was fit enough to talk, he told the respondents that the petitioner was not at fault. On 08.12.2015/09.12.2015, victim developed septicemia and he was again operated upon.

Thereafter, on 10.12.2015 the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner on the basis of the statements made by Head Constable Rajeev Kumar. On 12.12.2015, Sh. Salim Ahmad was declared dead. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.

4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent no.2 on behalf of respondent nos.5-6 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 7 Lacs in toto to respondent nos.2 to 6, LRs of Late Sh. Salim, in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement out of which a sum of Rs.5.3 Lacs shall be paid by him at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is agreed that the respondents shall cooperate with the petitioner in getting the FIR in question quashed and shall also withdraw the cases, if any, filed by them against the petitioner and also that they shall not file any civil/criminal case against the petitioner with respect to this incident in future. It is further agreed between the parties that after the execution of this settlement, no claim, lien and dispute shall subsist between them.

Respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent nos.5 & 6 through respondent no.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their affidavits dated 16.03.2016. In the affidavit, they stated that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statements of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and respondent nos. 5 & 6 through respondent no.2 have been recorded in this regard in which they stated that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioner and have settled all the disputes with him. They further stated that they have 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