ORAL JUDGMENT R.M.CHHAYA, J. (1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. (2) RULE. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. (3) Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the parties has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith. (4) By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the applicants original accused have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I76 of 2014 registered at Kalol City Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar for the offences under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). (5) Learned advocate for the applicants original accused has taken this Court through the allegations leveled in the impugned F.I.R. As per the facts mentioned in the application, the complainant belongs to Rabari community and he is keeping cows and buffaloes for his milk business. That before about one and half months of filing of the impugned F.I.R. some unknown persons at the midnight (about 2 O'clock) came with a pickup van and taken away four cows of the complainant, which were standing in the front of his house. However, at that time no complaint was lodged by the complainant before the police but as he came to know that some cow thieves were caught hold by Nandasan Police Station, the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be lodged before some unknown persons. That thereafter the present applicants were arrested and subsequently they were enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the present applicants are not involved in the alleged offence and even respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated 05.07.2014 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol wherein it is specifically stated that the present applicants were not present at the place of the incident. Reliance is placed upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2014 wherein it is mentioned that respondent No.2 has arrived at full and final settlement with the present applicants and the dispute between them has been resolved. It is categorically mentioned in the affidavit that the dispute is already resolved and the F.I.R. may kindly be quashed. Reliance is placed upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated 21.07.2014 wherein it is mentioned that respondent No.2 has arrived at full and final settlement with the present applicants and the dispute between them has been resolved. It is categorically mentioned in the affidavit that the dispute is already resolved and the F.I.R. may kindly be quashed. (6) Learned advocate for the applicants original accused further submits that in view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute any further continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. shall amount to harassment to the parties 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. (7) Learned advocate for the respondent No.2, has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants original accused. 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. To establish his identify, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has tendered the Election Card, which is taken on record. On enquiry by this Court and on explaining him the facts in Gujarati language, which is known to him, respondent No.2first informant, states that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and an affidavit to that effect is also placed on record of the present proceedings and, therefore, the first informant states that he does not want to proceed further with the matter in connection with the impugned F.I.R. (8) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, candidly states that as the dispute between the parties has amicably resolved and, therefore, this Court may pass appropriate orders. No other and further contentions are raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. (9) 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 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 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 would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants 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. (10) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I76 of 2014 registered at Kalol City Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R are hereby quashed and set aside. (11) Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.