ORAL JUDGMENT: R.M.CHHAYA, J. (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) RULE. Mr.Alkesh N. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents State authorities, and Mr.Navin S. Parmar, learned advocate for respondent No.4first informant, appear and waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. Mr.Parmar undertakes to file his vakalatnama for respondent No.4 within two days. (3) Having regard to the facts of the case and with consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the parties has been resolved amicably, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. (4) By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) the petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I 33 of 2014 registered at Deesa City North Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506(2), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). (5) In view of the fact that the petitioner is husband of respondent No.4first informant and considering the fact that they have reunited as husband-wife, it is not necessary to set out the allegations leveled in the impugned F.I.R. (6) Learned advocate for the petitioner original accused has placed reliance upon the affidavit (in vernacular language) filed by respondent No.4first informant dated 14.06.2014 wherein it has been stated the dispute is amicably settled between her and the petitioner and they are residing together and there is no ill will or dispute between them. She has, accordingly, declared that she does not want to pursue the F.I.R. (7) Learned advocate for the petitioner original accused further submits that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, which was predominantly of domestic in nature and was a matrimonial dispute, any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties and 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 to secure the ends of justice, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and may quash the impugned F.I.R. as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. (8) Learned advocate for the respondent No.4, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner original accused. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 is personally present in the court, who is identified by the learned advocate for respondent No.4. To establish her identity, learned advocate for respondent No.4 has tendered Aadhar Card, which is taken on record. On enquiry by this Court, respondent No.4 first informant, states that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and an affidavit to that effect is also placed on record of the present proceedings 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. (9) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, candidly states that the dispute between the parties is predominantly of matrimonial nature, which the parties have amicably resolved outside the court and, therefore, this Court may pass appropriate orders. No other and further contentions are raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. (10) Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present petition as well as considering the ratio of 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 petitioner would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and would amount to abuse of process of law and court and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned F.I.R. is required to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. (11) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I33 of 2014 registered at Deesa City North Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside. (12) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.