G.P.MITTAL,J. - (1.)THIS is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioner for quashing of FIR No.183/2010, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, Police Station Sultan Puri and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.
(2.)FIR No.183/2010 was registered on the basis of the statement made by Respondent No.2 Ms. Sinku Kaur to the effect that she got married to the Petitioner on 06.04.2004. Her father had expired two years before her marriage. After ten days of the marriage, she was being harassed and taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry.
After filing of the FIR, the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent No.2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by an order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi. Respondent No.2 in her statement dated 09.01.2012 recorded before the Family Court agreed to take the divorce by mutual consent on payment of Rs.70,000.00 by the Petitioner in full and final settlement of the Respondent No.2's claim towards maintenance.

(3.)IT goes without saying that the offence punishable under Section 498A is a non compoundable. In the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of quashing of FIR in non compoundable offences. Para 57 of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."