The main legal point established is the court's authority to invoke its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, especially in cases with predominantly civil character and amicable settlements, 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. Sandeep Sachdeva, Smt. Geeta Sachdeva, Smt. Simmy Sachdeva, Sh. Naveen Puri, Smt. Monika Puri, Sh. Vishal Bhatia, Smt. Kavita Bhatia, Sh. Abhishek Goel and Smt. Jaya Goel for quashing of FIR No.73/2011 dated 28.02.2011, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Shahdara on the basis of settlement deed, Counseling at Family Court, Shahdara, Karkadooma, Delhi executed between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Ms. Gracy on 04.12.2014.

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 Manish Chaudhary.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 20.01.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged that the in-laws and husband of the complainant were dissatisfied with the dowry brought in by the complainant at the time of marriage and that they would torture her for the same. It is the case of the complainant that after several instances of cruelty against the complainant by the accused persons, the complainant finally turned out of her matrimonial home on 23.08.2010 by her husband.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the accused persons and the respondent no.2.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the relevant terms of the settlement, it is agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 Lacs (“Settlement Amount”) towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of their marriage which includes permanent alimony, dowry articles, istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future) and shall also hand over the articles as listed in the terms of the settlement in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement. It is also agreed that the above mentioned amount shall be paid in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement. It is also agreed that out of the Settlement Amount the petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1.25 by way of DD/cash to respondent no.2 at that time of quashing of the FIR in question and that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners for the same. It is agreed that both parties to the settlement deed shall withdraw all the cases as enunciated in the terms of the same and the parties or their families they shall not file any case against each other in future. It is agreed if any such case/complaint is found pending against either party, then the same shall be deemed to be withdrawn. It is pertinent to mention that that respondent no.2 has already received a sum of Rs. 2.11 Lacs which is not a part of the agreed Settlement Amount. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 15.03.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she 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 res