The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences if parties amicably settle disputes, balancing justice with public interest.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") for quashing of FIR bearing No. 167/2016 registered at PS Rajinder Nagar.

2. The petitioner no l and the respondent No.2 got married on 28.6.2015 according to Hindu rites and customs and out of their marriage one girl child namely Keerat was born on 19.4.2016 who is in the care and custody of respondent no 2. The petitioners no 2 to 5 are family members/relatives of the petitioner no 1 and are identified by the investigating officer. The respondent no 2 is also identified by the Investigating Officer. The matrimonial differences stated to be arisen between the petitioner no l and respondent no 2 and due to this reason they are living separately since 18.12.2015. The petitioner no 1 and the respondent no 2 initiated legal proceedings against each other. The petitioner no 1 filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights titled as Jaimeet Kalra Vs. Gurdeep Kaur bearing no HMA No 261/16 which was pending in Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The petitioner no 2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner no 1 and the respondent no 2 titled as Jasbir Singh & another Vs. Jaimeet Singh & another bearing no 03/2016 which was pending in the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. The petitioners have already withdrawn petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Civil Suit due to settlement. The respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and on the basis of said complaint, FIR no 167/2016 was registered at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi initially for offences punishable under sections 498A/406/376/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). The statement of the respondent no 2 was recorded under section 164 of the Code during investigation and thereafter offences punishable under sections 328/377/506 IPC were also added. The investigating officer after conclusion of the investigation filed the charge sheet and thereafter supplementary charge sheet was also filed on 16.09.2019. The petitioner no 1 and the petitioner no 4 filed bail applications bearing no 3173 and 3027 and the court of Sh. Chander Shekher, ASJ (Central) referred bail applications for mediation to Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts. The remaining petitioners also filed bail applications bearing no 3932 and 3174.

3. The petitioner no 1 and the respondent no 2 have settled their disputes vide settlement dated 27.05.2016 recorded in Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts. It is stated by the respondent no.2 that she has settled matrimonial disputes with the petitioner no 1 out of her own free will and without any force and coercion. The respondent no 2 has retained custody of the daughter Keerat. The petitioner no 1 out of settlement had paid Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) by way demand drafts as detailed in settlement as full and final amount for the maintenance, upbringing, marriage and education expenses of daughter Keerat which was acknowledge by the respondent no 2. The petitioner no 1 also agreed to pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to the respondent no 2 towards full and final satisfaction of legal entitlements/claims (past, present and future) of the respondent no 2 arising out of marriage including marriage expenses, ceremonial payments to the petitioners and their relatives, permanent alimony, istridhan/dowry articles etc. The petitioner no 2 has already paid Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) to the respondent no 2 out of Rs.50,00,000/- which is also acknowledged on behalf of the respondent no 2. The petitioner no. 1 paid balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) by way of two demand drafts of Rs.10,00,000 each, bearing Nos. 006230, 006233 dated 25.05.2022, 27.05.2022 in favour of respondent no. 2.

4. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has already