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. Zubin F.Bharda, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – 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.II- 33 of 2018 registered with Dediapada Police Station, Narmada, for the offences punishable under Sections 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. Vaibhav A.Vyas, 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 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.

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

4. Mr. Zubin F.Bharda, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav A.Vyas appearing for the applicants.

5. The original complainant – respondent no.2 herein is present before the Court and he has been identified by Advocate Mr. Zubin F.Bharda. The affidavit of the complainant is placed on record and he has affirmed the affidavit and the contents and also identified his signature. In the Affidavit dated 08.09.2021 filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicant has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the common friends and respectable members of the society; 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.

6. 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.

7. 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