JUDGMENT : P.S. TEJI, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Krishan Gopal Mendiratta and Smt. Gian Devi for quashing of FIR No. 326/2006 dated 16.04.2006, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, namely, Smt. Shalini Mendiratta @ Shalini Kwatra. 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 her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 on 13.04.2004. On 14.04.2004, within hours of the complainant’s reaching the matrimonial home, her husband and in-laws started taunting her and complained about poor arrangements made by her parents in the marriage. The in-laws and husband of the complainant used to make frequent complaints to her for bringing in insufficient dowry and for not bringing a car and a refrigerator in dowry. The in-laws and husband of the complainant used to beat her mercilessly. The complainant’s husband had never developed any physical relations with her. On seeing her plight in the matrimonial home, her parents took her back to the parental home. 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 respondent no. 2. 4. Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. On 04.04.2016, a joint petition of second motion for divorce by mutual consent was filed by petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 by virtue of which petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 settled all their matrimonial disputes including stridhan, permanent alimony, dowry articles and maintenance (past, present and future). Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 further agreed to withdraw any case/complaint/ application etc. (if any) which were filed by and are presently pending against each other and/or against their respective families and undertook not to file any case/complaint in future. They also undertook that after divorce neither of them shall initiate any action-civil or criminal against the other. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 further agreed to withdraw any case/complaint/ application etc. (if any) which were filed by and are presently pending against each other and/or against their respective families and undertook not to file any case/complaint in future. They also undertook that after divorce neither of them shall initiate any action-civil or criminal against the other. Respondent no. 2 undertook that she shall co-operate with petitioner no. 1 for the purpose of getting the FIR in question 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 petitioner no.1 and has settled all the disputes with him. 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 recognized 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 questions 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. 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.