ORDER :

1. Rule. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. G.K. Chauhan, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively. Mr. G.K. Chauhan, learned advocate is permitted to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being CR. No.I- 84 of 2019 against the applicants registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences punishable under sections 498A, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The complainant – Henal Umeshbhai Jaisinghani – respondent No.2 herein is present before this Court, who has been identified by learned advocate Mr. G.K. Chauhan. The complainant has filed the affidavit dated 23.12.2021 in this regard; the same is ordered to be taken on record. 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.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the matrimonial issues have been settled and the parties have mutually separated by decree of divorce and there remains no grievance between them, and, therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the original complainant, respondent no.2.

5. Mr. G.K. Chauhan, learned advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate appearing for the applicants.

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 the dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved and the settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

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 of Cr.P.C. in matrimonial matters. The observations made in paragraphs- 15, 39 and 40 are relevant. It read thus:-

“15. On the aforesaid bedrock, a prayer in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 has been made to have a uniform policy of registration of FIR, arrest and bailin cases of Section 498-A IPC. It is worthy to note here that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the judgment had been pronounced in Rajesh Sharma (supra). The Court in Rajesh Sharma (supra) issued the following guidelines:-

“19.(i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/ wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.

(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.

(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication.

(e) Report of such committee be give