ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.Dax K Solanki states that Mr. Nabil Yusufzaid has instructions to appear on behalf of the complainant and therefore, he seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama. Registry to accept same.

2. Heard, learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Rule. The learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at bar by the learned advocates for the respective parties that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

5. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 ‘BNSS’], the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11206023240680 of 2024, registered with Kheralu Police Station, Mahesana for the offences punisable under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bhariya Nyay Samhita and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

6. The 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 complainant as well as the husband of the complainant have filed Affidavits, which are taken on record. In the Affidavit, the complainant and her husband has categorically stated that the dispute involved in the FIR has been resolved amicably and she has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

6. The complainant and her husband are present before the Court today. When questioned, both of them have unequivocally stated that they have entered into compromise with the accused and they have amicably settled the dispute and have no objection to quash the FIR that is registered against the applicant.

7. It is apt here to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of CrPC 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 held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.

8. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the aspects that both the petitioner and the complainant are married and now they have started living their lives separately with their respective married persons as also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is resolved amicably and complainant has no objection if the FIR is quashed, in the opi