ORDER :

1. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-11198047201071 of 2020 registered before the Sihor Police Station, Dist.: Bhavnagar for offences punishable under sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC.

2. Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the applicants stated that the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

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

3. Advocate Mr. Tejas D.Shukla for Mr. Hard S.Soni, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. R.D. Kinariwala appearing for the applicants.

4. The Court verified the contents of compromise with the original complainant – respondent no.2, who is present before the Court and identified by Advocate Mr. Tejas D.Shukla. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, affirmed about execution of the notarized Affidavit dated 19.12.2020, wherein terms of settlement have been recorded. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, categorically stated that the issue was regarding the amount of Rs.20,000/- borrowed by him. He states that the same has already been repaid. He states 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.

5. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, 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.

6. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. In the notarized Affidavit dated 19.12.2020 filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the applicants has been amicably resolved. It is also averred that there is no ill-will between the parties and that the original complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident.

7. 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 though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any