A.J. Desai, J.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Jimit Shah states that he has instruction to appear for the original complainant - respondent No.2. He is directed to file his appearance forthwith. The complainant states that the matter is settled between the parties.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. I 72 of 2018 registered with Limbdi Police Station, District Surendranagar for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act as well as quash all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of common friends and relatives. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected.

7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2-Devirajsinh Shivubha Borana dated 19.9.2017. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and the respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of common friends and relatives and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another., (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another., (2009) 1 GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others., (2009) 1 GLH 190 and Narinder Singh and Others. Vs. State of Punjab & Another., (2014) 2 Crimes (SC) 67, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the appl