IMPORTANT POINT
A redundant criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue.

ORDER (ORAL)

This 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 being C.R. No.I-5 of 2018 registered with Nadiad West Police Station, Kheda for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) (r) (s) (w) and Sections 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “the Atrocities Act”) and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

2. It is stated by learned advocate Mr.Himanshu V. Thakkar that the matter has been settled. The controversy had arose because of the quarrel that had taken place in the society and now the issue has been sorted out and the learned advocate Ms. N. M. Zaveri for learned advocate Mr. Himanshu Thakkar submits that to maintain peace and to develop fraternity they have settled.

3. Mr. J.P. Macwan learned advocate for the complainant has produced the affidavit and stated that the complainant lady would not be in a position to appear before this Court and thus this Court asked learned advocate Mr. Macwan to make the arrangement through video conference and accordingly the complainant Kaushalyaben w/o Virendrabhai Kanubhai Chauhan through the video conferencing has affirmed the affidavit and stated about the settlement between the parties. Mr. Macwan learned advocate submitted that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1863 of 2023 the complainant has also settled with the other co-accused and the settlement has been accepted on 25.3.2023.

4. Mr. Hardik Mehta, 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.

5. 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 reported in 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 offender and the 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 victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civi