The High Court can quash FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC when parties have amicably settled disputes, ensuring no legitimate prosecution is stifled.

[1.0] Learned advocate Mr. Kirtirajsinh K. Vaghela states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

[2.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

[3.0] 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.

[4.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11211015240143 of 2024 registered with Dhrangadra Police Station, District Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the Criminal Case No.583 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Dhrangadra, District Surendranagar.

[5.0] 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 Affidavit dated 23.04.2024 which is produced with the petition at Annexure-C. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners 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.

[6.0] Going through the record, it appears that impugned FIR is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 wherein it is alleged that on 05.03.2024 at around 7.15 to 7.30 p.m., when the complainant and witness were sitting near shop viz. Raj Nandini, at that time, accused persons came with deadly weapons and accused No.1 was having iron tommy and accused Nos.2 and 3 were having knife and accused No.2 inflicted knife blow on the back side of thigh of the complainant due to which the complainant injury and accused No.1 inflicted blow of iron tommy on the back side of head of the complainant and other accused carrying wooden log also inflicted blows on the complainant. In this regard, FIR came to be filed. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed which culminated into Criminal Case No.583 of 2024. Subsequent to filing of charge-sheet, settlement took place between the parties.

[7.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872. [8.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the fact