ORDER :

1. Mr. Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that originally the petition was filed by two applicants; however subsequently the petition was disposed of as withdrawn qua the applicant no.1 – Pankajbhai Kishanlal Chavla vide order dated 18.08.2020. He submits that now the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the original complainant has also filed affidavit to such effect. He, therefore, seeks permission to join Mr. Pankajbhai Kishanlal Chavla as applicant no.2 in the present petition so that the impugned complaint could be quashed qua both the applicants in view of the settlement between the parties.]

2. In view of the above, leave to join Mr. Pankajbhai Kishanlal Chavla as applicant no.2 is permitted. The same shall be carried out forthwith.

3. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Hitesh L.Gupta, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively.

4. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.11196035200153 of 2020 registered with Wadi Police Station, Dist.: Vadodara City for offences punishable under section 498A, 324, 506 and 114 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

5. Mr. Ashish M.Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that, the disputes is of private in nature. He 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.

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

6. Mr. Hitesh L.Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 – original complainant concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Ashish M.Dagli appearing for the applicants.

7. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with the original complainant – respondent no.2, who is present before the Court. She stated that disputes have been settled and they have decided to part their ways and petition for divorce by mutual consent is filed before the Family Court at Vadodara. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, affirmed about the execution of the Affidavit dated 24.12.2021, wherein the terms of settlement have been recorded. 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.

8. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, 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.

9. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. In the Affidavit dated 24.12.2021, filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved and that the present compromise is arrived at without any threats, pressure, and undue influence.

10. 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