ORDER :

1. Rule. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors waive service of Rule on behalf of the respondent–State and the learned advocates appearing for the original complainants waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective original complainants. Both the matters have been filed for quashing the FIRs on merits.

2. Criminal Misc. Application no.6867 of 2020 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.11197046200209/2020 registered with Shinor Police Station Vadodara Rural for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

3. Criminal Misc. Application no.14805 of 2020 has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.11197046200509/2020 registered with Shinor Police Station Vadodara Rural for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 203, 193, 182, 114 of the IPC.

4. It has been stated by the learned advocates for the applicants that both the FIRs have arisen out of the same incident and both the complainants are facing the prosecution and because of the intervention of community people, friends and family members, compromise has been arrived at and both the advocates submit that the settlement of the issues would bring peace and harmony in the locality and even between the family members. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned FIRs may be quashed and set aside.

5. Both the complainants – Rinkubhai Bhogilal Patel and Vijaybhai Manibhai @ Manilal Vasava are present before this Court and both have affirmed the affidavits filed and state that now there is no grievance between any of them and continuation of FIR would rather affect the society and thus, both of them have urged to quash the FIRs.

6. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the respondent-State submitted that any FIR should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein. Learned APPs have urged that the settlement under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 should not be accepted since it is a special provision and the trial should proceed.

7. Learned advocates for the original complainants have concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocates appearing for the applicants. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with the original complainants who are present before the Court. The original complainants affirmed the affidavits, wherein terms of settlement have been recorded. The original complainants categorically stated that they have no grievance against the applicants and that they have no objection to the quashment of the impugned FIRs filed by them.

8. 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 d