O R D E R

(ORAL)

In the above captioned first petition, quashing of FIR No.605/2015, whereas in the above captioned second petition, quashing of FIR No.604/ 2015, both under Sections 354A/323 of IPC, registered at police station Dabri, Delhi is sought. Both the FIRs pertain to one incident. Quashing of these FIRs is sought on the ground that misunderstanding which led to this incident, now stands cleared between the parties in terms of Mediated Settlement of 6th June, 2018 (Annexure P-3).

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, accepts notice of these two petitions and submits that Ms. Neetu Pandey is the complainant in FIR No.605/2015 and Ms.Neeru Maurya, is the complainant in FIR No.604/2015 and they have been duly identified to be so by ASI Ombir, Investigating Officer of this case as well as their counsel.

Complainants of these FIRs submit that the misunderstanding, which led to registration of these FIRs, now stands cleared. They submit that both the sides are neighbours and to restore harmony between the parties, proceedings arising out of these two FIRs be brought to an end.

Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 has reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR / criminal complaint, which are as under:-

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-

compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as th