IMPORTANT POINT
All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

ORDER

Learned advocate Mr. Pavan Barot submits that he appears on behalf of respondent no.2 – original complainant and seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama. Registry to accept his Vakalatnama.

2. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Mr. Pavan Barot, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant.

3. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashment of the FIR No. 11211050210258 of 2021 registered with Thangadh Police Station, Surendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “the Atrocities Act”) and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

4. Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. It was submitted that the parties are known to each other and are residing in the same village and therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

4.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the original complainant, respondent no.2.

5. Mr. Pavan Barot, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Y.J. Patel appearing for the applicant.

6. The defacto complainant – respondent no.2 herein appeared through the devise of mediator Bhanubhai Hazaria, who has reconciled the dispute between the parties, and the complainant has been identified by Advocate Mr. Pavan Barot. The affidavit of the complainant is placed on record and he has affirmed the affidavit and the contents and also identified his signature. In the Affidavit dated 03.07.2021 filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicant has been amicably resolved with the intervention of some elderly persons of their community; and that the impugned complaint had been filed because of some misunderstanding and misconception. It is also averred that there is no ill-will between the parties and that the original complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. It is also averred that they are residing in the same village and same locality

7. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that any first information report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

8. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and has perused the material on record. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 2012 (10) SCC 303, the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus:

“61. 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 FIR may be exercised where the of