The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of complaint of complainant Parminderjit Kaur d/o Sukhdev Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity ' the complainant' , a criminal case was registered against petitioners-accused Surjit Singh s/o late Jagraj Singh and his mother Sukhwinder Kaur, vide FIR No. 387 dated 20.9.2009 (Annexure-P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/Ss. 406 and 498-A, IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Amritsar.

2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan), the petitioners-accused were accordingly charge-sheeted to face the trial of indicated offences, by means of impugned order/charge-sheet dated 6-10-2010 (Annexure-P2) and the case was slated for evidence of prosecution by the trial Court.

3. During the pendency of the criminal case, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by virtue of compromise deed dated 3.9.2014 (Annexure P-4) and affidavit (Annexure P5) of the complainant.

4. Having compromised the matter, the petitioners-accused have preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1), order (Annexure-P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr.PC, inter alia, pleading that now with the intervention of relatives and respectables of the society, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, vide pointed compromise deed (Annexure P4). The complainant has also reiterated the factum of compromise in her affidavit (Annexure P5). Petitioner No.1 and complainant have decided to part their ways and have already filed a joint petition (Annexure P-3) for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent u/S. 13-B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ' the Act' . The parties have redressed their grievances and have no grudge against each other. The complainant has no objection if the criminal case registered against the petitioners, by way of impugned FIR is quashed. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, they sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1), impugned order/charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto in the manner described hereinabove.

5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity or otherwise of the compromise deed (Annexure P-4) between them, by virtue of order dated 18.9.2014 by this Court.

6. In compliance thereof, the trial Court, having recorded the statements of all the concerned parties, has reported, vide its report dated 15-10-2014 that the compromise is voluntarily, genuine and without any threat, pressure or coercion.

7. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes, by means of compromise deed (Annexure P4), affidavit of complainant (Annexure P5) and the pointed report of the trial Court.

8. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the law with regard to the settlement of such disputes, by way of amicable settlement between the parties is no more res integra and is now well-settled.

9. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon- ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 1796). Having interpreted the relevant provisions and considered a line of the judgments on the indicated points, it was ruled (para 57) as under:-

' 57. 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 p