The court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and proceedings based on the amicable resolution and settlement between the parties, emphasizing the need 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. Bittoo and Sh. Naveen for quashing of FIR No. 669/2015, under Section 354/354(D)/ 452/323/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khyala, Delhi on the basis of a mediation executed between him and respondent No. 2 namely Smt. Preeti on a compromise/settlement deed.

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 18.10.2015 at about 07:45 p.m. Respondent no. 2 was going from the gali, where petitioner No. 1, namely Bittoo and petitioner no. 2, namely Naveen caught hold the hands of respondent no. 2, namely Ms Preeti. Petitioner no. 1 proposed her and on raising the objection by the respondent no. 2, Bittoo slapped her. After reaching her house, when she was narrating everything to her mother in law, petitioner no. 1 and 2 forcibly entered her house in drunken condition and started abusing her. When the mother in law and sister in law of Smt. Preeti objected they started beating them and threatened to kill them. Thereafter, complainant/Respondent no. 2 got registered the 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 a settlement.

Respondent no. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid compromise. 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 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 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 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 fact