ORAL ORDER

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

2 Today, Mr.Dwijen S. Pandya, learned advocate appears before the Court and states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant and requests that he may be permitted to appear and file vakalatnama during the course of the day and to direct the Registry to accept his vakalatnama for respondent No.2.

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

3 Heard Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent – State and Mr.Pandya, 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 Mr.Pandya 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 applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report being C.R.No.I-45 of 2019 lodged before Vadi Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punihable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.

6 Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submitted an affidavit of Respondent No.2 - complainant – Hemant Mahendrabhai Patni dated 20.7.2022 wherein it is stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties by intervention of family, friends and other members of the community, and therefore, the present application may be allowed by quashing the impugned FIR.

7 Respondent No.2 - complainant - Hemant Mahendrabhai Patni is present before this Court, who has been identified by learned advocate Mr.Pandya. 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. The said affidavit is ordered to be taken on record.

8 Ms.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State respondent objects to the quashing of the impugned FIR by stating that considering the fact that the offence registered under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which would provide for maximum punishment of 10 years if the present applicant is held guilty by the trial court, and therefore, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings may not be quashed.

9 Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the fact that essentially the dispute is between landlord and tenant, which has now been amicably settled as also considering the fact that the complainant is present before this Court and he has in no uncertain terms stated before the Court that the dispute is settled between the parties, which is related to a piece of land. Further, 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