ORDER :

1. 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.II- 3014 of 2013 registered with Thara Police Station, Dist. Banskantha, for the offences punishable under Section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i) and 14 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.

2. Mr. Kirit R.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the complainant was selling milk to the Milk Produce Co.op. Mandli, Isarva. She has never been denied sale of milk in the said Mandli. To the milk supplied by the depositors, certain parameters were laid down in respect of the standards by the Co.op. Mandli and beyond that he cannot even permit any other members to breach conditions. It is stated that the complainant would always be permitted to deposit the milk in accordance to the standards laid down; and has given the assurance that personally he would never deny any of the members or others, if as per rules, are permitted to deposit the milk.

2.1 Mr. Chaudhari submits 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 therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

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

3. The original complainant – respondent no.2 herein is present before the Court and she has been identified by Advocate Mr. S.L. Vaishya. The affidavit in vernacular language of the complainant is placed on record. In the Affidavit dated 08.12.2021 filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that she has no intention to file the complaint and her source of income is by selling of milk, which she receives from domestic cattle and that she only wants an assurance that the Milk Produce Co.op. Mandli, Isarva would accept milk, which she shall deposit in the Mandli.

4. 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.

5. 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 exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have sett