ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.Harsh Vyas states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original-complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11215002240284 of 2024 registered with Anand Town Police Station, District : Anand for the offences under Sections 384, 447, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an AfÏdavit, which is taken / placed on record. In the AfÏdavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the applicants has been resolved amicably and that he has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

6. Going through the materials available on record, it appears that At the instance of the respondent No.2. In the present case, it appears that Tanvir is son of respondent No.2 and son-in-law of applicant No.1 and brother-in-law of applicant Nos.2 and 3, applicant no.4 is family friend of applicant Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that the accused persons had trespassed in the house of the complainant and used abusive language to her son and after trespassing, they fled away with the passport and VIZA letter forcefully from house of the complainant. It appears that they had forcefuly taken the passport and VIZA letter of the complainant and made an assault to Tanvir. In this regard, the complaint came to be filed. During the pendency of the petition, the settlement took place. In this regard, afÏdavit is filed. It is the case of the complainant that the son of the complainant was married with daughter of accused viz. Sikandarbhai as son of the complainant is having VIZA of Canada. He left the country and stay at Canada. Then, he returned to India, he was not ready and willing to go back Canada along with his wife. Due to this scufÒed, the incident took place and in the said incident, acter trespassing, the accused persons fled away with the original passport and VIZA letter forcefully. In this regard, complaint came to be filed. Subsequently, settlement took place and there was no any extortion or intentionally the complainant took any fear and caused any injury. Merely, while there are going to left the premises, at that time, the accused slept the Tanvir.

6.1. So far as Section 384 of the IPC is concerned. However, dispute is private in nature and complainant, witnesses and accused persons are relatives. They had settled the dispute.

7. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the appli