ORDER :

1. RULE. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Mr. Vijay H.Nangesh, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.4 – original complainant.

2. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashment of the FIR being C.R. No.I- 34/2019 registered with Surat Rural Kamrej Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “the Atrocities Act”) and all the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

3. Mr. Abhiraj R.Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that 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.

3.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the original complainant - respondent no.4.

4. Mr. Vijay H.Nangesh, learned advocate for respondent no.4 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj R.Trivedi appearing for the applicants.

5. The matter was referred to the Medication Center and the report of the Mediator along with communication of Chairman and Principal District Judge, Dahod District Legal Service Authority, is on record.

6. Today, the complainant – Rajubhai Tersinghbhai Sangodia, respondent no.4 herein, is present before the Court and he has been identified by Advocate Mr. Vijay H.Nangesh. He states that he has filed an Affidavit dated 21.09.2021 stating about the amicable settlement that has been arrived at Mediation Center, Dahod in Mediation Case No.29/2020 and the compromise deed dated 04.11.2020 was produced before the Mediation Center. He states that he has also received Cheque of Rs.1,11,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.3,15,000/- is deposited before the registry of this Court. He submits that as per settlement, the remaining amount of Rs.3,15,000/- be directed to be given to him and for that otherside has no objection. Original complainant – respondent no.4 has affirmed the affidavit and the contents and also identified his signature. In the Affidavit dated 21.09.2021 filed by respondent no.4 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved in the Mediation Center.

7. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that any first information report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

8. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and has perused the material on record. 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 exerc