P.S. Teji, J. - The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Sachin Goyal, Sh. Suresh Chand
Aggarwal, Smt. Geeta, Sh. Anup Aggarwal and Smt. Renu Aggarwal for quashing of FIR No.93/2014 dated 11.02.2014, under Sections 498-
A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar on the basis of settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2,
namely, Smt. Shalini Aggarwal.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be
the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Arvind Kumar.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 08.02.2011
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the said wedlock a male child was born on 16.10.2011. It is the case of the complainant that
the in-laws and husband of the complainant were allegedly unsatisfied with the dowry brought in by the complainant at the time of marriage and that
they used to torture her for the same. It is alleged that on 30.11.2011, the complainant was beaten mercilessly by her in-laws for not fulfilling their
demand of Rs. 10 Lacs following which she lodged a complaint against the accused persons in the local Police Station at Ballabgarh. It is further
alleged that on 30.12.2011, the complainant''s husband threatened to withdraw the complaint lodged by her in the Police Station at Ballabhgarh. It
is further alleged that on 16.01.2012, the complainant''s husband left home at the pretext of buying milk for their son and never returned home,
after which, all efforts by the complainant to contact her husband were in vain. The complainant even informed the officials at Police Station
Krishna Nagar which was recorded vide DD No. 52.
Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. During the
pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the accused persons and the respondent no.2.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the
respectable persons of the society. As per the settlement, petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have taken divorce by way of mutual consent. It is
agreed that petitioner no.1 has paid a sum of Rs. 11 Lacs towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of their marriage which
includes permanent alimony, dowry articles, istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future) for respondent no.2 and their son Master Om
Aggarwal. It is agreed that the above mentioned amount shall be paid in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement. It is agreed that the
petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs in the name of Om Aggarwal to respondent no.2 at time of quashing of the FIR in question and that
respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners for the same. It is also agreed that after this settlement, the parties shall not file/pursue any
further litigation against each other and that nothing shall remain pending in any court of law and if any case/compliant/dispute is found pending
before any court of law or authority, then the same shall be considered to be withdrawn. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement and of her affidavit dated 18.12.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in
question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so,
the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in
which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she
has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognised the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like
the instant one, by observing as under:-
61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The
relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement
and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences
under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings
even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two
objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have
been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The
respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has
been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the
process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke
the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to
secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law
is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of
the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal has
observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the
conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would
quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure
ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into
compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v.
State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon''ble Apex
Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon''ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-
compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and
circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of
disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India
being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in
temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th
report, the Law Commission of India had emphasised that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach
radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the
commencement of the trial.
Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are
already over burdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes
alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires
conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes,
especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end
to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore,
continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the
parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.93/2014 dated 11.02.2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Krishna Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
