ORAL ORDER

1 Leave to amend prayer clause. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2 Today, Ms.Komal Khatri, learned advocate appears before the Court and states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant and requests that she may be permitted to appear and file vakalatnama during the course of the day and to direct the Registry to accept her vakalatnama for respondent No.2.

Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The Registry is directed to accept the vakalatnama of learned advocate Ms.Komal Khatri for respondent No.2.

3 Heard Mr.Digant Kakkad, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent – State and Ms.Komal Khatri, learned advocate for respondent No.2 – original complainant. Upon the joint request of the learned advocates for the parties, the application is taken up for final hearing today.

4 Hence, Rule. Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent – State and learned advocate Ms.Komal Khatri waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant.

5 By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report being C.R.No.II-327 of 2018 lodged before Gondal City Police Station, Gondal on 1.12.2018 for the offences punihable under Sections 323, 504, 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.

6 Learned advocate Ms.Khatri submitted an affidavit of Respondent No.2 - complainant – Abdulkadarbhai Yusufbhai Gajyani dated 18.8.2022 wherein it is stated that after registering the FIR, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, and therefore, he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR against the applicant are quashed by this Court. The said affidavit is ordered to be taken on record. Learned advocate Ms.Khatri on the basis of the aforesaid affidavit stated that the applicant and the original complainant happens to be relatives and due to some misunderstanding FIR was registered and now in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR may be quashed by this Court. 7 Respondent No.2 - complainant – Abdulkadarbhai Yusufbhai Gajyani is present before this Court, who has been identified by learned advocate Ms.Khatri. Upon inquiry from the Court, the complainant states that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and he does not have any objection if the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.

8 Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present case and taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicant would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and Court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section

482 of the Code.

9 For the reasons recorded above and in view of the consent of the complainant, who is present before the Court, which was confirmed o