The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly and with caution, particularly in cases involving heinous and serious offences, and the justification for quashing non-compoundable offences based on settlement and mediation.

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Dharmendra Singh for quashing of FIR No.490/2013, under Section 354/323/341 IPC registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi on the basis of mediation proceedings carried out at Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, Delhi between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 namely, Smt. Geeta.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant in the FIR in question.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 02.10.2013 the complainant was going to the terrace of her house, when on the staircase, the petitioner/accused met her and held her hand and molested her and pushed her due to which she sustained injuries.

The complainant after the above incident got registered the FIR in the present matter.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled with the accused/petitioner. Respondent affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mediation proceedings carried out at Mediation Centre, New Delhi. 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 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 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 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, or

(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 a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offenc