ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Neel Dave, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 & 2 respectively.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaint being I- C.R. No. 177 of 2019 registered with Kadi Police Station, Dist.: Mehsana on 2.11.2019 qua for offfences punishable under Sections 395 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 3. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that after the service of Notice to the Respondents and more specifically the private respondent who is the original first informant, settlement took place between the parties as it was an internal private dispute and upon the intervention of community people, common mediators and elders of the family, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate submitted that to preserve the feeling of brotherhood between the parties and for peace in the area, the settlement was drawn. Mr. Barot further submitted that respondent No.2- original complainant filed his affidavit, which was notarised on 18.3.2021, which is on record along with copy of Aadhar Card and has stated that because of Corona the original complainant died on 4.5.2020. Mr. Barot, learned advocate referred to the affidavit of Mr. Jiten Sandipbhai Patel and daughter of the complainant. He submitted that all the members of the family, who have been injured, have prayed to quash the FIR.

3.1 Mr. Barot, learned advocate submitted that the parameter laid down in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 would not be a detterence in view of the law expressed with regard to Section 395 and 397 of IPC. In the case of Dharmendra Nandubhai Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) G.L.H 739, Mr. Barot submitted that in this case the facts does not suggest any ingredient of dacoity. The FIR reflects that during the scuffle 1 and ½ tola gold-chain and cash amount of Rs. 27,000/- had fallen down on the ground and according to the complainant, it was picked up by applicant No.1 – Gaurav @Goga Natubhai Patel. He submits that the complainant and the witnesses have no dispute at present with regard to said money and gold-chain since it is in the possession of the concerned witnesses, who have asserted to the settlement.

4. To that, learned advocate Mr. Neel Dave, who has identified the witnesses- daughter of the complainant and son - Mr. Jiten Sandipbhai Patel, has affirmed the said fact and even both the witnesses who were before this Court through Video-conferencing, have accepted the fact of settlement between the parties and have stated that they have no dispute or grievance, as whatever differences were there between them, have been resolved because of mediation of the representatives of the community.

4.1 The daughter of the complainant, whose affidavit has been on record and who was present before the Court through Video- conferencing, has assured the Court that she has not asked for any compensation with regard to the complaint in terms of Section 354B of IPC. She stated that she had intervened during the scuffle to assure that no injury occurs to her father and brother and in the process, her clothes got torn. She stated that the accused had no intention to assault on her modesty.

4.2 Mr. Neel Dave, learned advocate stated that he was representing respondent No.2 defacto complainant and it was through him, the affidavit was produced on record and the complainant had given his consent for quashing the said FIR and the all the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

5. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP has relied upon the report of the Police Inspector, Kadi Police Station, District: Mehsana and submitted that serious allegations are made and Section 395 and 354B of IPC have bee