ORDER :

1. Mr. Dipen Chaudhary, learned advocate submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent no.2 – original complainant. He seeks permission to file Vakalatnama before the Registry. The vakalatnama be accepted and taken on record.

2. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith.

3. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-150/2019 registered with Bapunagar Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad for offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 114 of IPC and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

4. Mr. Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that, the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. He submits that the matter has been settled since the applicant and the victim girl, aged about 17 years 11 months and 13 days at the time of incident, got married and are residing together, and out of the wedlock they have a child. Mr. Chaudhary submits that the settlement is peaceful and without any force and coercion and to that effect they have filed the affidavit and therefore, in the larger interest of society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Dpien Chaudhary, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that the parents are willingly accepted the marriage and the applicant and victim girl are residing happily. He submits that the complainant has no objection if the F.I.R. would be quashed. Mr. Chaudary further submitted that affidavit of the complainant, victim girl and father of the victim are produced on record to affirm and confirm the fact that the settlement is amicable.

6. Both the parents and the victim, deponents of the affidavits, are present before this Court and the Court verified the factum of settlement. The victim girl states that she on her own volition left the parental home and joined the petitioner and states that now she is mother of a child. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, mother of the victim girl, categorically stated that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by her.

7. Ms. Hardik Mehta, learned APP, submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein.

8. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. The affidavits of complainant, victim girl and father of the victim dated 06.01.2023 are produced on record. In the Affidavit dated 06.08.2021, filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the petitioners has been amicably resolved by the intervention of family members and other society people.

9. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 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. 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