ORDER : A.J. DESAI, J. Ms. Manisha Acharya, learned advocate states that she has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2-original complainant and shall file her appearance at the earliest. She has identified the original complainant, who is present in the Court and has filed Affidavit stating that the matter is settled between the parties. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. Rule. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf respondent No. 1 - The State of Gujarat. Ms. Manisha Acharya, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant. 4. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R No. I-19 of 2017 registered with Viramgam Town Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable u/s.376, 506(2), etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along with all the subsequent proceedings arose from the said FIR. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 as well as in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi reported in [2013 (3) G.L.R 1875 and submitted that since the matter is settled and all the grievance raised in the FIR do not exist, there is no need to proceed further with the trial with regard to the FIR. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 - original complainant states that he has identified the complainant, who is present in the court and has filed Affidavit stating that the matter is amicably settled between the parties and the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the proceedings arose from the said FIR, may be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State would submit that though the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and this petition may be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 7. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State would submit that though the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and this petition may be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. I have perused the Affidavit filed by the complainant, in which, it is specifically stated that the matter is settled between the parties and the complainant has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is allowed. The FIR being CR. No. I-19 of 2017 registered with Viramgam Town Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable u/s.376, 506(2), etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along with all the subsequent proceedings arose from the said FIR, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant only. 10. In view of the fact that the matter is settled and the impugned FIR has been quashed by this Court by passing the aforesaid order, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant forthwith. Hence, the applicant is ordered to be released in connection with an offence being C.R No. I-19 of 2017 registered with Viramgam Town Police Station, Ahmedabad, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 11. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. Bail bond to be executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 12. Direct service is permitted today.