JUDGMENT Umesh A. Trivedi, J. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Ms. K.D. Parmar, states that she has an instruction to appear for the respondent No.2-complainant. She is permitted to file her appearance forthwith. 2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned advocate appearing for the Complainant waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Considering the issue involved in the present application and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the fact that the dispute amongst the applicants and respondent No.2 has been resolved amicably, this application is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 4. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing CR No.I-397 of 2018 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384, 120(B), 294(A), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicants. 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 parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to amicable settlement. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is resolved, the trial would be futile and any further continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. It is therefore submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code and allow the application as prayed for. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected. 7. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the present application and submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence, the complaint in question may not be quashed and the present application may be rejected. 7. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicants. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 also relied upon the affidavit filed by respondent No.2-Yogeshbhai Gokalbhai Patel, dated 01.01.2019. Respondent No.2 is present in person before the Court and is identified by learned advocate for respondent No.2. On inquiry made by the Court, respondent No.2 has declared before this Court that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to amicable settlement and therefore, now the grievance stands redressed. It is therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances arising out of the present application as well as taking into consideration the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in, (2008) 4 SCC 582 , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in, (2009) 1 GLH 31 , Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors. reported in, (2009) 1 GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in, (2014) 2 Crimes(SC) 67, it appears that further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It appears that the trial would be futile and further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing CR No.I-397 of 2018 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384, 120(B), 294(A), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing CR No.I-397 of 2018 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384, 120(B), 294(A), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC filed against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the applicants. 10. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.