Private nature of the dispute, amicable resolution, and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR and related proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil H. Purohit states that he has an instructions to appear for the respondent No. 2- complainant. He is permitted to file his appearance forthwith.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicant and respondent No. 2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code”) the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside F.I.R. bearing CR-I/11207061210420/2021 registered with Shahera Police Station, District Panchmahals for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicant. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No. 2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present application contending that the dispute is not private in nature and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected.

7. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2-Aaratsinh Bhalabhai Pagi dated 05.04.2022. Respondent No. 2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No. 2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No. 2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No. 2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others, 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the applicant. I have also considered the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in