The main legal point established is the need for amicable resolution of disputes, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law, and the principles guiding the quashing of criminal proceedings.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Maman Singh for quashing of FIR No.203/2012 dated 06.07.2012 under Sections 406/420/506 IPC registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) on the basis of Mediation Report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Sujeet Kumar on 15.09.2015.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant by SI Pankaj Kumar.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant and the accused person are relatives and reside in the same village. In October 2011, the accused person approached the complainant and requested him to provide two Wagon-R cars bearing registration No. HR55 KT 6876 and HR26 AY 8976 on monthly user charges of Rs. 30,000/-(Rs. 15,000/-per month for each car). In November 2011, when the complainant demanded the user charges for October 2011, the accused person allegedly abused and harassed the complainant instead of making the payment. On intervention of the relatives, the accused person assured that he shall make the payment in April 2012. When the complainant demanded the payment in April 2012, the accused person allegedly again refused to make the payments and further extended threats to implicate the complainant in false cases.

Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has already returned the vehicles bearing registration No. HR55 KT 6876 and HR26 AY 8976. As per the Mediation Report, it is agreed that the petitioner shall not tease the respondent no.2 in any manner and both the parties shall maintain good relations with each other being relatives. It is agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw all the cases/complaints filed by him against the petitioner and shall cooperate in the quashing proceedings with respect to the FIR in question initiated by the petitioner.

Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 27.02.2016. In the affidavit, he 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 petitioner 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 petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. 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 question(s) 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