JUDGMENT : (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) RULE. Learned counsel for the respondents appear and waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. (3) By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I46 of 2014 registered at Bilimora Police Station, Dist. Navsari for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 324, 354(b), 506(2) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). (4) As per the applicants of the present application, it is alleged in the impugned F.I.R. that the complainant and the accused are relatives and before seven months, there was a dispute which had occurred due to placing of mobile towers in the agricultural field which resulted into applicant No.1 assaulting the son of the complainant. That on 31.05.2014 when the complainant along with her children was present in her house at that point of time, the accused entered her house and accused No.1, with help of some other accused, assaulted the complainant and her children i.e. two sons and one daughter and caused damaged to the doors and windows of her house and threatened to do away with the complainant and her family and since a panic was caused in the neighbourhood the complainant had to leave her house and start residing in her aunt's house at Village Vankal. (5) Learned advocate for the applicants, has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application. At the outset it is submitted that the present applicants and the complainant are family members and closely related with each other. It is also submitted that there is a cross complaint filed by the accused persons against the complainant and other four persons. It is further submitted that due to intervention of the prominent members of the society, an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the accused and the complainant and they are agreed to settle the dispute permanently by way of an amicable settlement and a compromise agreement dated 09.06.2014 is also executed by all the concerned parties wherein it is, inter alia, categorically mentioned that either party can quash the F.I.R. on the basis of the said compromise. Reliance was placed upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated 28.06.2014 wherein it is mentioned that upon intervention of the elderly family members the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is further submitted that the issue involved in the present application is predominantly of personal in nature. (6) Learned advocate for the applicants has further submitted that any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the applicants and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties trial would be futile and the same would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and therefore it is submitted that in order secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. (7) Learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is personally present in the court, who is identified by the learned advocate for respondent No.2. On enquiry by this Court, respondent No.2 first informant states that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and an affidavit to this effect is also placed on record of the present proceedings along with her identity proof i.e. Election Card and, therefore, the first informant states that she does not want to proceed further with the matter in connection with the impugned F.I.R. (1) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondentState, candidly states that the dispute between the parties is predominantly of personal in nature, which the applicants and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved and, therefore, this Court may pass appropriate orders. (2) Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as considering the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) S.C.C. 582 , Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190 as well as Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4) S.C.C. 582 , Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2009(1) GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., 2009(1) GLH 190 as well as Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Panjab & Anr., 2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC), it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants original accused would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and the trial would be futile and would also amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the end of justice, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. (3) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I46 of 2014 registered at Bilimora Police Station, Dist. Navsari as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside. (4) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.