IMPORTANT POINT
The court can exercise inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding based on the settlement of a dispute between the parties, as laid down by the principles established in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another and State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others.

ORDER :

1. Learned advocate Mr. Purvesh Prajapati appears for the respondent no.2 – original complainant. Learned APP has produced report of the Assistant Police Commissioner, Rajkot City dated 21.05.2024, which is taken on record.

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

3. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being FIR No.11208044220618 registered with Pradyumannagar Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot City for offences punishable under sections 3, 4(3), 5(a), 5(c) and 5(e) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 and sections 504, 506(2) and 34 of IPC.

4. Mr. Pratik Y.Jasani, 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. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. Purvesh Prajapati, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant, concurred with the factum of settlement of the dispute, as advanced by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Y.Jasani appearing for the applicants.

6. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. The respondent no.2 - original complainant has affirmed the Affidavit dated 15.05.2024. 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.

7. Mr. Jay Mehta, 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.

8. In the Affidavit dated 15.05.2024 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. It is further averred in the affidavit that if the criminal proceedings continued, then both the sides would be subjected to rigors of criminal trial, which will immensely affect their future prospects of better life, and he does not want wish to prosecute the criminal proceedings against the applicants, as the dispute between them is amicably settled, and therefore the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed and set aside.

9. 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 though