The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's invocation of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a non-compoundable offence under Section 354-A IPC, based on the amicable resolution of disputes between the parties and the settlement agreement.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Pintu for quashing of FIR No. 489/2014 dated 04.07.2014, under Section 354-A IPC registered at Police Station Vikas Puri, Delhi on the basis of an agreement/settlement executed between petitioner and respondent no. 2 namely, Smt. Monika.

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.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 04.07.2014, the complainant/Respondent no. 2 was sleeping in her room with her husband and children, while the doors were opened due to the hot weather conditions. At about 1:15 a.m. the petitioner entered into the room and caught hold the hand of the complainant/respondent no. 2 upon which the complainant got up and woke her husband. Thereafter, her husband apprehended the Petitioner.

The complainant subsequently got registered an FIR in this present matter.

4. Respondent No. 2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the accused/petitioner after entering into an agreement/ settlement.

Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement/agreement. 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 may 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 deed with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5. In Gian Singh vs. 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 vs. 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 discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice.

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such