Point of law : Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens such that dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Parimal Vaghela, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 respectively. Mr. Parimal Vaghela, learned advocate, is permitted to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of original complainant – respondent no.2. The same be taken on record.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaint being FIR No.11211031210151 of 2021 registered with Limbdi Police Station, Dist.: Surendranagar for offfences punishable under sections 323 and 114 of IPC and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

3. Mr. Laxmansinh M.Zala, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. It was submitted that the parties are known to each other and are residing in the same village and therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

3.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the original complainant - respondent no.2.

4. Mr. Parimal Vaghela, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Laxmansinh M.Zala appearing for the applicant.

5. The virtual Court verified the contents of the compromise with the original complainant – respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, affirmed about the execution of the Affidavit dated 12.07.2021, wherein the terms of settlement have been recorded. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, categorically stated that he has no grievance against the applicant and that he has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by him.

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 has perused the material on record. In the Affidavit dated 12.07.2021 filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicant has been amicably resolved with the help of friends and relatives and that the impugned complaint had been filed because of some misunderstanding and misconception. It is also averred 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. It is true that the offences alleged against the applicants under the Indian Penal Code are noncompoundable and that some of the offences could be compounded with the permission of the Court. 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