The court emphasized the duty to give adequate treatment to settlement between parties, particularly in cases involving compoundable offences, and the need to consider the likelihood of criminal prosecution resulting in conviction.

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.342/2021 under Sections 498A/406/377/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 got married on 23.11.2017 and they lived together as wife and husband with each other. After the marriage, disputes and differences arose between them and they started living separately since January, 2020. Respondent no.2 got the above said FIR registered against the petitioners on 22.07.2021.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the trial, parties have settled the matter amicably by way of MOU dated 09.10.2021. Accordingly, petition under Section 13-B(2) of the HMA Act was allowed and the marriage of petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 was dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 07.12.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.

4. Issue notice. Learned ASC for the State enters appearance on advance notice and accepts notice. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also enters appearance and accepts notice.

5. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent and learned ASC for the State. I have also perused the record.

6. The present petition, has been moved before this Court invoking Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the FIR No. 342/2021. It is pertinent to note here that offences under Sections 498A IPC and 377 IPC are 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.

7. 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, has been the subject matter of scrutiny and comment by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It is well settled that in exercise of this inherent and wholesome power, the touchstone is as to whether the ends of justice so require. This Court had the occasion to trace the relevant law on the subject in a batch of matters led by Yashpal Chaudhrani vs. State (Govt, of NCT Delhi), 2019 SCC Online Del 8179 wherein after taking note, inter alia, of State of Karnakata Fs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699; State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89; B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303; Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58; K Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; Parbhatbhai Aahir Vs. Bhimsinhbhai Kurmur, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688; the broad principles were culled out as under:-

"55. Though the above-noted authoritative pronouncements o f the Supreme Court have consistently laid down the broad principles governing the exercise of power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for bringing an end to the criminal process, for addressing the concerns noted at the outset and future guidance of trial courts, some o f the crucial ones may be flagged as under:-

(i) . The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482 Cr. PC, is primarily to "prevent abuse o f the process o f court" or to "otherwise secure the ends o f justice".

(ii) . The ends o f justice are higher than the ends o f mere law, the prime principle governing the exercise o f inherent power being "to do real, complete and substantial justice" for which the court exists.

(iii) It is the duty o f the court to give "adequate