JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants have approached this Court jointly for quashing and setting aside the first information report registered at the instance of applicant No. 2. 3. Applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 are known to each other. Both of them are gainful employees in different Banks. Applicant No. 2 has lodged first information report on 14/3/2014 alleging therein that applicant No. 1 had telephoned her and thereafter came to her house, though she refused to do so. It is further stated that there was some altercation between them and applicant No. 1 abused applicant No. 2. 4. The parties have now arrived at a settlement and have decided that they shall sever all relations with each other. 5. Applicant No. 1 is married and he has one daughter. Applicant No. 2 is yet to be married. 6. We are of the opinion that continuance of criminal proceedings would hamper the family life of applicant No. 1, so also, in future, applicant No. 2 would face the problem in settling down in her life. 7. The Apex Court, in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab - 2008 (4) SCC 582 : [2008 ALL SCR 775] and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another- 2012 (9) SCALE 257 : [2013 ALL SCR 171], has held that when the dispute is purely private in nature and involves no element of public law, this Court should invoke jurisdiction and exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings so as to give an end to the criminal litigation. 8. No doubt, this is not a case where no element of public law is involved. However, it appears that the allegations, which are levelled by applicant No. 2 in the first information report against applicant No. 1 are for the acts happened within the fore-corners of her house. 9. From the reply filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer, it would appear that none of the neighbours have given statements with regard to the incident. 10. It is thus clear that even if applicant No. 1/accused goes for trial, it would result in discharge or acquittal. 11. 9. From the reply filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer, it would appear that none of the neighbours have given statements with regard to the incident. 10. It is thus clear that even if applicant No. 1/accused goes for trial, it would result in discharge or acquittal. 11. No doubt, that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not relevant that a case would result into an acquittal or discharge. However, in the present case, we find that in the interest of two families, it is just and proper that this Court should exercise the powers under Section 482. In that view of the matter, the first information report needs to be quashed. However, the same shall be subject to some costs to be paid by applicant No.1 for the charity purpose. 12. In the result, the application is allowed. I. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause-(b). II. First Information Report No. 142/2014 registered with Pratapnagar Police Station, Nagpur against applicant No. 1 is quashed and set aside. III. Applicant No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) to the Police Welfare Fund of the Police Commissionerate at Nagpur. IV. The said amount shall be deposited with the Police Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks and the receipt thereof be placed in the proceedings of the present matter. V. It is, however, made clear that if the amount is not paid within a stipulated period and the receipt thereof is not filed in the proceedings of this matter, the aforesaid order of quashing the FIR shall automatically stand recalled and the application shall be treated as dismissed. Application allowed.