JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. seeking quashing of FIR No. 184/2011 under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, 1860 and all proceedings arising therefrom at Police Station Preet Vihar on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. 2. Issue notice. Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant is also present in Court. She is also identified by the Investigating Officer - SI Brahmpal Singh. 3. It is the case of the parties that the aforesaid complaint came to be lodged as a result of certain matrimonial disputes that has arisen after the marriage of the complainant - Madhvi Pawar Duggal with the first petitioner - Niketan Duggal on 02.12.2009. The parties thereafter moved the Family Court in HMA No. 741/2014 under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Carriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of their marriage by mu­tual consent. These proceedings concluded with a decree of dissolution of marriage on 10.05.2014. Copies; of the petition seeking dissolution of their marriage under Section 13(B).(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as well as the Decree Sheet, have been annexed td this petition/The terms and conditions on which the matter has been settled, are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition. In terms thereof, the petitioner was obliged to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the second respondent in full and final settlement of all her claims. Out of this, she has stated to have received an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs; and the remaining balance of Rs. 2 lakhs has been handed over in the Court today by way of a demand draft bearing No. 919187 dated 05.08.2014 issued by Karnataka Bank Limited in favour, of complainant - Madhvi Pawar. An affidavit of the second respondent stating that the matter has been amicably settled and nothing remains due except the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which is to be received by her in Court today, has also, been annexed to the petition. The complainant also specifically approbates this position in Court and further states that she: does not wish to continue with the prosecution and that the matter be now closed. 4. 2 lakhs which is to be received by her in Court today, has also, been annexed to the petition. The complainant also specifically approbates this position in Court and further states that she: does not wish to continue with the prosecution and that the matter be now closed. 4. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances; and since this is a matter arising out of the domestic dispute, where all aspects of the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and now the complainant is also not interested in supporting the prosecution, the prospects of the success in the prosecution are greatly diminished and, therefore, it is best if a quietus is given to the matter. He, however, also points out under instructions, that the first petitioner has never been available to the Investigating Agency or to the Court and that he has been declared a Proclaimed Offender; and even in these proceedings, he is represented through an Attorney, namely, Smt. Pooja Kashyap. 5. In response, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been residing in USA even prior to his marriage, where he is gainfully employed and where he has remained ever since. He further prays that looking to the overall circumstances, and since the parties have settled the matter, the petitioner be saved from further harass-mint, as well as the inconvenience and expense of travelling to India. 6. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Sinsh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim; if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under : “58. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” And also in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2014 (2) JCC 1360 : 2014 (2) Crimes 67 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows: -- “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 and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6 Offences under Section 307 In­dian Penal Code would fall ‘in the cate­gory of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 29.6 Offences under Section 307 In­dian Penal Code would fall ‘in the cate­gory of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision: It would be open’ to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,’ which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guid­ing factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to ‘result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7 While deciding whether to exer­cise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged 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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3 Such power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, da-coity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for 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. 29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great op­pression and prejudice commission of offence and the matter is still under in­vestigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but af­ter prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is. at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed or not. at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and therefore there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 7. Looking to the overall circumstances, I am satisfied the matter deserves to be given a quietus notwithstanding the fact that the first petitioner has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender, which has clearly come, about in the peculiar circumstances, of the case where he has continuously been liv­ing in the United States of America where he is gainfully employed; more so, since the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of success. Consequently, arid for all these reasons, FIR No. 35/2009 registered at Police Station Preet Vihar under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC, 1860 and all proceedings arising therefrom including any orders declaring the petitioner a Proclaimed Offender, are quashed. The petition is disposed off.