ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.G.Pathan, 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 C.R. No. I- 8 of 2019 against the applicants registered with Mahila Police Station, Dist.: Bharuch for offfences punishable under sections 406, 498A, 495, 504 and 114 of the IPC.

3. Mr. Sadik Ansari, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that upon the intervention of the elders of the family and society, dispute between the respondent No.1 and the applicant No.1 is amicably settled outside the Court and the matrimonial issues have been settled and the parties have already taken Talaq and there remains no grievance between them. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1, who is staying in Canada, is ready to file undertaking to give his consent for necessary process for the passport of the minor daughter. 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- Aafifabanu Ilyas Umar, who is represent by Mr. S.G. Pathan, learned advocate.

4. Mr. Kadri, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. Pathan, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted that due to personal difficulty, Mr. Pathan learned advocate is not in a position to appear before this Court. Mr. Kadri, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. Pathan, learned advocate, identifies the respondent No.2 Aafifabanu Ilyas Umar, who is present before this Court. Ms. Aafifabanu has presented her notarised affidavit dated 5.10.2021 stating that she has already taken Talaq from the other side and thus does not want to pursue the complaint. She states that out of the wedlock, a daughter is born who is aged 8 years and states that she would process for getting passport in the name of minor. Ms. Aafifabanu submits that the applicant No.1 has agreed to give his consent for necessary process for the passport of the minor. Mr. Kadri, learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Sadik Ansari appearing for the applicants.

5. The Respondent No.2- complainant is present before the Court. The Court verified about the settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact regarding taking Talaq from the other side and has stated that whatever has been stated in her affidavit dated 5.10.2021 is true and the same is executed in presence of Notary. The respondent no.2, original complainant, categorically stated 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.

6. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP 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. The respondent no.2 – original complainant affirmed that dispute with the applicant has been amicably resolved with the intervention of elder of the family and society and the settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Ms. Aafifabanu has presented her notarised affidavit dated 5.10.2021 stating that she has already taken Talaq from the other side and thus does not want to pursue the complaint. The applicant No.1 has agreed to give his consent for necessary process for the passport of the minor.

8. In the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another V. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others, reported in 2018 (10) SCC 443, the Apex Court made an elaborate discussion on the scope and powers of the High Court under Section 482 o