The court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes based on genuine settlements between the parties and the likelihood of conviction.

1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 06.09.2007. A male child named Krrish @ Keshav was born out of the wedlock on 26.08.2008 he being in the custody and care of the second respondent. Both the parties started living separately since 18.06.2008 on account of matrimonial dispute. On 22.08.2009, the second respondent lodged first information report (FIR) no. 151/2009 with police station Farsh Bazar alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner) and his mother (second petitioner). Upon conclusion of investigation, the police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C). The parties were referred to Delhi Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts where they agreed to amicably resolve the matter by entering into a settlement dated 05.10.2013 in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divorce, they also having agreed, inter alia, for the criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.

2. The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR no. 151/2009 under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC of police station Farsh Bazar.

3. The second respondent appeared in person before this Court and was examined as CW-2 by the learned predecessor bench on 28.02.2018. In the said statement, she informed the court that she does not oppose the prayer made in the petition for quashing of the abovementioned FIR in view of the aforesaid settlement between her and the petitioners nor seeks any action against anyone else. The mediation settlement agreement dated 05.10.2013 (Ex.CW-2/A) was also affirmed by her. In terms of the arrangement, second respondent was to receive Rs. 3 lakhs as full and final settlement, she having acknowledged the receipt of the amount in two instalments. She also affirmed that the marriage between the parties has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce. A copy of the decree of divorce granted on 27.05.2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA 619/2015 has been placed on record at the hearing today.

4. Pertinent to note here that offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable. The parties are constrained to move this court for quashing on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above.

5. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of a catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this “inherent” and “wholesome power”, the touchstone is as to whether “the ends of justice so require”, and it was observed thus :

“10. ... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. ...that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

(emphasis supplied)

6. The Supreme Cour