ORDER :

1. The present 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-136 of 2016 registered before the Gondal City Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot Rural for offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 327 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the parties have settled the disputes 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. Mr. Pawan Barot, learned advocate submits that he is appearing for respondent No.2 – original complainant. He is permitted to file his Vakaltnama.

4. Advocate Mr.Barot, for respondent No.2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate appearing for the applicant.

5. The original complainant – Bhayeshkumar Vinodrai Dhol, who is present before the Court and identified by Advocate Mr. Barot by relying on his Affidavit dated 12.01.2023 submits that, he has already informed about the settlement and has expressed desire to quash and set aside the FIR against the present applicants, and he has affirmed the contents of the said Affidavit; thus, makes a request to quash the FIR.

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.

7.1 In the Affidavit dated 12.01.2023 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.

8. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:-

“8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable