The Court can exercise inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the dispute is private and personal, and the settlement between the parties makes the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

ORDER :

1. Advocate Mr. Malay Patel submits that the original respondent no. 2 since deceased, the permission be granted to the heirs of the deceased to be joined as party respondents, thus prayed for grant of amendment. He seeks permission to file vakalatnama on behalf of the legal heirs.

1.1 Leave to amend is granted. The same shall be carried out forthwith. The heirs of deceased respondent no. 2 - Jitendrakumar Talsibhai Patel are permitted to be on record. Mr. Patel has produced copy of death certificate of respondent no. 2-Jitendrakumar Talsibhai Patel dated 25.02.2018 along with copy of ‘Pedinama’ to show the heirs of the respondent no. 2 and his Vakalatnama, which are taken on record.

2. 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-190 of 2015 registered with Idar Police Station, District Sabarkantha for offfences punishable under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 193, 196 and 120B of IPC and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.

3. Mr. Mrugen K.Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted 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.

3.1 Learned advocate submitted that the Court may verify the said aspect from the heirs of deceased original complainant - respondent no. 2.

4. Mr. Malay Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2- original complainant concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit appearing for the petitioner.

5. The daughters Ms. Kinjalben Jitendrabhai Patel and Niralben Jitendrabhai Patel and wife Ramilaben Jitendrabhai Patel of the original complainant-respondent no. 2, have filed their affidavits and they are present before this Court. The Court verified the contents of the compromise with them. They submitted that they have amicably settled the issue with the interventions of the family members, and they belong to the same caste and community. The respondent no. 2 - original complainant, affirmed about the execution of the Affidavits dated 17.01.2023, wherein it has been categorically stated that as per the settlement terms, the legal heirs of deceased Jitendrakumar Talsibhai Patel proposes to withdraw Regular Civil Suit No. 44 of 2014, and they have no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by their father/husband, deceased respondent no. 2.

6. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned 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 Affidavits dated 17.01.2023, filed by the heirs of respondent no. 2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the petitioner has been amicably resolved.

8. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 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 o