The court emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be used sparingly and that when the matter stands settled between the parties, the proceedings under the FIR deserve to be quashed.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for quashing of FIR No. 179 dated 30.6.2011 (Annexure P/1) registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P/2).

2. In brief, the facts are that a marriage was solemnized between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 7.3.2010, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Rohtak. No child was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR. Petitioner No.1 even filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2013. Aggrieved against the said decree of dissolution of marriage, respondent No.2 has filed an appeal in this Court. Respondent No.2 also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the meantime, during the pendency of one of the petitions filed by petitioner No.1, being Criminal Misc. M 39571 of 2017, this Court referred the parties to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of Mediator, the all disputes between the parties have been sorted out by a compromise/settlement dated 1.3.2018. As per terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by her and had also agreed to make statement for quashing of the instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in terms of the compromise (Annexure P/2), the petitioners have paid the entire amount of Rs.35 lakh to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, vide orders dated 7.3.2018 and 26.3.2018 (Annexure P/3), but now respondent No.2 is not appearing in this Court despite service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal Versus Amit Kumar Agarwal 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 949 and Mohd. Shamim Versus Smt. Nahid Begum 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 697 to contend that in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court had quashed the FIR when the wife was not coming forth to withdraw the FIR, despite availing all the benefit under the compromise.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have also perused the pleadings as well as the orders dated 7.3.2018 and 26.3.2018 (Annexure P/3).

6. At the outset, it is noted that notice of motion in this case was served for 12.7.2018. As per the office report, respondent No.2 served was served, but she did not put in appearance and the matter adjourned for 16.8.2018. Though on 21.8.2018 and 25.9.2018, Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 but neither on the last date of hearing nor even today none has put in appearance on her behalf. Under the circumstances, this Court is not left with any option but to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

7. Admittedly, a settlement/agreement came into effect before the Mediator of this Court in Criminal Misc. M 39571 of 2017 on 1.3.2018. This settlement/agreement was arrived at before the Mediator appointed, namely, Ms. Reeta Kohli, and the said settlement/agreement is duly signed by the parties. In terms of the compromise, the petitioners herein have made the payment of Rs.35 lakhs to the respondent-wife as full and final settlement for the past, present and future maintenance, which is evident from the orders dated 7.3.2018 and 26.3.2018. In terms of the said agreement, respondent No.2 had agreed to make a statement for quashing of the instant FIR on receipt of full and final payment of Rs.35 lakhs.

8. It is settled law that the inherent