IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's discretion to quash criminal proceedings in cases of matrimonial disputes, emphasizing the need to encourage genuine settlements and exercise discretion in quashing criminal proceedings involving private or personal disputes.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 25865/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.MA. 25866/2023 (exemption from personal appearance)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed permitting the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 to attend the hearing virtually through video conferencing.

4. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 6920/2023

5. By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 831/2021 dated 25.12.2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at PS Kalkaji, Delhi as well as all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, in view of the settlement arrived at between Petitioner No. 1/Mr. Rohit Jindal and Respondent No. 2/Ms. Harshita Khaitan. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 3 is the mother while Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the brother and sister-in-law of Petitioner No. 1, respectively.

6. Marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as `parties') was solemnized on 16.04.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs. No child is born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, parties have been residing separately since 27.12.2019. Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) lodged an FIR against all the Petitioners herein, which was registered as FIR No. 831/2021.

7. Parties amicably resolved and settled their inter se disputes and incorporated the terms of the settlement in a Settlement Agreement dated 28.04.2022, which has been placed on record. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, parties filed petitions under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. Both Motions were allowed by the learned Family Court, Saket, New Delhi and a Decree of Divorce was passed on 16.11.2022, dissolving the marriage between the parties.

8. As per the Settlement Agreement, a total amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by Petitioner No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 in full and final settlement of all her claims towards maintenance, permanent alimony, istridhan etc. in four installments, out of which the fourth and last installment of Rs.15,00,000/- was payable at the time of quashing of FIR No. 831/2021.

9. Parties are appearing virtually along with Petitioners No. 2 to 5 through video conferencing and have been identified by their respective counsels and the Investigating Officer (IO) SI Ravi Kumar, PS Kalkaji, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 states that since the matter has been settled between the parties and all terms of the settlement under Settlement Agreement dated 28.04.2022 have been complied with including payment of the amounts due and payable, she has no objection if the FIR is quashed against the Petitioners.

10. In view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State does not object to the FIR being quashed.

11. I have heard the counsels for the parties and the learned APP. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held as follows:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity