Point of Law: Dispute is settled and therefore, in view of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 – original complainant have been amicably settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and thereby peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. Moreover, any further continuation of proceedings in this matter would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it would be expedient to quash the subject- FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom

JUDGMENT :

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR being CR No. 11210012200912 of 2020 registered with Chowk Bazar Police Station, District – Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Matafer R. Pande for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the Respondent – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Hemant B. Raval for the Respondent No. 2 – original complainant through video conference.

Factual Matrix of the Case:

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted that in the present case both, the complainant and accused have settled the case and therefore, no cause survives and for living peaceful life and forgive bitterness, they have made compromise. He further submitted that an amicable settlement is arrived at between the Complainant and the applicant Accused and the Affidavit to that effect is also placed on record. He further submitted that the applicant Accused has no serious antecedents and therefore, discretion may be exercised by this Hon'ble Court and the Application may be allowed and the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed.

3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon four different authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, viz. (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, (iii) a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973 and (iv) Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736.

4. Per contra, learned APP has heavily opposed the petition and the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties on the ground that the character of the petitioner is not good. It is submitted that at the age of 71 years, he should not have been indulged in such activities and therefore, the consent quashing may not be allowed and the petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that if the Hon’ble Court is inclined to allow the present petition in that case heavy cost may be awarded.

4.1 Learned APP has further placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar reported in 2019(0) AIJEL – SC 63692, wherein, it is held that High Court quashed FIR on the basis of a compromise between complainant and accused, when there were antecedents upon the applicant, application for consent quashing was not be considered, by Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. Learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has placed on record Statement of Affidavit sworn by the Respondent No. 2 - original complainant dated 10.9.2020. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Original Complainant has also identified the original complainant who is personally present in the video conference. He has also identified her signature on the affidavit. The Affidavit reads thus:

“.........After the registration of the FIR main person of the society, and common friend of the Original accused and original complainant intervened and matter is settled. I the original complainant don’t want to proceed with the aforesaid FIR; there is no mala-fide intention behind filing this affidavit.

This affidavit is in English language which is translated to me into Gujaraati language, which I know the best. I have made this affidavit to file with the petition of the petitioner (Original Accused). I have made this affidavit with good faith, not to spoil the relation with the petitioners because myself and the original accused are from the same community and from the same caste and I have made this affidavit without any pressure and I have s