ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms.Trusha Patel for the applicants, learned APP Ms.Mehta for the respondent State, and learned Advocate Mr.Mohamadzaid Saiyed for respondent No.2.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates for the respective respondents waive service of Rule.

3. Vide an order dated 7.3.2022, this Court had recorded as thus:-

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel on behalf of the applicants and learned APP Ms. M. D. Mehta on behalf of the respondent-State, learned Advocate Mr. Mohamadzaid I. Saiyed on behalf of the respondent no. 2-original complainant.

2. By way of this application, the applicants pray for quashing of the FIR being C. R. No. I- 56 of 2018 registered with the Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad on 19.05.2018 for offences punishable under Sections- 143, 147, 323, 427 and 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections-8(8)(r) and 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989.

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Patel, on behalf of the applicants, would submit that subsequent to filing of this application, the parties have inter se arrived at a settlement, more particularly, according to learned Advocate Ms. Patel an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs had been paid to the complainant and to the witnesses who had allegedly suffered some loss on account of some actions on part of the applicants herein. Learned Advocate Ms. Patel would submit that subsequent to such payment, the complainant as well as six of the seven witnesses/ persons who had suffered some damage have consented to quashing of the impugned FIR. Learned Advocate Ms. Patel would, therefore, submit that considering the fact of settlement and considering the amount having been paid to the complainant and other victims/ injured persons, this Court may quash the impugned FIR.

4. Submissions of learned Advocate Ms. Patel are supported by learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed appearing on behalf of the complainant. Learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed would submit that the complainant as well as six of the seven persons referred to in the FIR, to whose properties some damage had been caused, had been distributed the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. Learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed would submit that except for one person who claims to have suffered some damage to her property, the complainant and other injured persons have consented for quashing of the FIR. Learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed would further submit that the complainant is present in this Court and whereas upon inquiry by this Court, the complainant who is identified by learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed, confirms the fact of settlement and further confirms that she would not have any objection for quashing of the complaint.

5. Learned APP Ms. Mehta would draw the attention of this Court to the recital of the FIR and would submit that while in normal circumstances the complainant having consented, the Court would normally exercise his jurisdiction, in the instant case one of the witnesses whose property had been damaged does not appear to be part of the settlement.

6. Having regard to the same, learned APP Ms. Mehta is directed to get appropriate instructions from the Investigating Officer as to whether the said witness namely Ms. Premilaben, W/o Ashokbhai Bhurabhai Dantani is agreeable on the settlement between the parties and whether any part of the Rs. 4 lakhs paid by the applicants had been received by Ms.

Premilaben or her family.

7. For further consideration list this matter on 14.03.2022. Presence of the complainant is dispensed with.

4. In compliance of the said order, learned APP Ms.Mehta tenders a report by the Police Inspector, Sabarmati Police Station, whereby the said witness Ms.Premilaben Ashokbhai Dantani and her son Mr.Jagdishbhai Ashokbhai Dantani while upon being inquired as to whether they would be agreeable to give statement with regard to the settlement, stated that they were not agreeable to give any statement with regard to the settlement between the parties.

5. Le