ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 respectively.

2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing Part A C.R. No.11210055200053 of 2020 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto.

3. 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 therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the original complainant, respondent no.2.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna states that he appears for the complainant and that he will file his Vakalatnama. If so, let the Vakalatnama of learned Advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna be accepted. Learned Advocate for respondent no.2, original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of dispute advanced by learned advocate Mr. Daifraz Havewalla appearing for the applicants.

5. The complainant is present before this Court and learned Advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna identifies the complainant – Jaysukhbhai Ramjibhai Mehta. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with the original complainant. The respondent no.2, original complainant, affirmed about the execution of the Affidavit dated 15.12.2022 before the Notary wherein the terms of settlement have been recorded. The respondent no.2, original complainant, categorically stated that he has no grievance against the applicants and that he has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by him.

6. Learned Additional 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.

7. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. In the Affidavit dated 15.12.2022 filed by respondent no.2, original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved and hence, prayer is made for quashing of the subject First Information Report.

8. It is true that certain section of IPC is non-compoundable and that the other sections 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 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