Point of Law: Admittedly, the dispute is a private and personal affair. The injury sustained does not involve any mental depravity nor amounts to a heinous crime. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the customary divorce taken between the parties, there exists no scope for any further proceeding in the matter. The continuance of proceedings would lead to wastage of precious judicial time as there would remain no possibility of any conviction in the case.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Pathik M.Acharya, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being I-CR No.40/2019, registered with Jam-Jodhpur Police Station, Dist.: Jamnagar for offfences punishable under section 498A and 114 of IPC and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

3. Mr. Niral R.Mehta, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably, as they have taken customary divorce on 10.03.2021 and now there remains no grievance between them. It was, therefore, submitted that in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

4. Mr. Pathik M.Acharya, learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Niral R.Mehta appearing for the applicants.

5. The complainant – respondent no.2 had appeared before the virtual Court on 09.06.2021. She had stated before the virtual Court on 09.06.2021, that they have taken customary divorce on 10.03.2021, however, the matter was adjourned for today to place on record the Affidavit of the complainant – respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, had categorically stated before the virtual Court that she has no grievance against the applicants and that she has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by her. Today, the notarized affidavit dated 09.06.2021 of original complainant – respondent no.2 is on record, who is identifed by learned advocate Mr. Acharya.

6. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

7. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The respondent no.2 – original complainant affirmed that dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved. It is also affirmed that there is no ill-will between the parties and that the original complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors., in Writ Petition (Civil) No.73 of 2015 held that, in cases under Section 498A of IPC, if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure and the High Court keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, shall dispose of the same.

9. It is true that the offence under Section 498A alleged against the applicants under the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable. Section 498A does not find place in the table followed in Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence, even there is no specific amendment of State of Gujarat for compounding of the said offence, as laid down in case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (supra), the High Court would have to consider the settlement arrived by the parties under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 wit