A.J. DESAI, J.

Mr. Sunil Prajapati, learned advocate states that he has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant and shall file his appearance at the earliest. He has identified the original complainant, who is present in the Court and states that the matter is settled between the parties.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. Rule. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant.

4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed to quash the FIR being C.R No. I-57 of 2017 lodged with Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable u/s.384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 40, 42(A)(D) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR.

5. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant has identified original complainant, who is present in the Court and who has filed Affidavit dated 19/06/2017, which is taken on the record. It appears from the Affidavit that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and original complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi reported in 2013(3) G.L.R 1875 and submitted that since the matter is settled between the parties, there is no need to proceed further with the trial. It is the case of applicants that now there is no dispute between the applicants and original complainant.

7. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed this application and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed.

8. I have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as Affidavit filed by the original complainant dated 19/06/2017, which reads as under:

“I, Mukeshbhai Babubhai Nathani, Age: about 23 years, residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of the present petition, the respondent no. 2 - orig. complainant herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:—

1. I am the respondent no. 2 - orig. complainant in the memo of petition and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am duly competent to file this affidavit.

2. I say that I have gone through the memo of petition and the facts stated in the memo of petition are not disputed by me. At the outset, I say and submit that the disputes and grievances of both the sides have been amicably settled and I do not wish to prosecute the petitioners any further with respect to the F.I.R registered as C.R No. I-57/2017 with Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable u/s.384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 40, 42(A)(D) of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 as well as all proceedings arising therefrom.

3. I say and submit that after lodging the impugned FIR, I realized that a minor dispute has taken a massive shape. After filing the impugned FIR, I realized the nature of hardships and inconvenience, socially and mentally, it will cause to both the sides, if the criminal proceedings continue and both the sides are subjected to rigors of criminal trial, it will immediately affect our future prospects of better life.

4. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I at my free will, wish and desire am stating on oath that I do not wish to prosecute the criminal proceedi