ORDER : 1. Rule. This group of matters are in relation to FIR registered at Dholera Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), District : Ahmedabad as C.R. No. I – 50 of 2018. 2. Along with these matters, Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 was filed and was proceeded with the captioned matters. It appears from the record that the complainant of I – C.R. No.50 of 2018 Piyushbhai Bhodilal Shah had moved Misc. Criminal Application (Direction) No.1 of 2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.23274 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Application (Fixing Date of Early Hearing) No.2 of 2019 in Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018. Both the Criminal Application No.1 of 2019 and 2 of 2019 stood disposed of on 25.04.2019. It appears that by some bonafide inadvertence, on disposal of the referred Criminal Misc. Application, Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 was shown as disposed of. Learned advocate, Mr. Vipul B. Sundesha, for the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 moved a Note on 28.07.2020 to place Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 for hearing. 3. Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 is still running matter along with other cognate matters hence, the said Special Criminal Application No.11100 of 2018 is ordered to be restored on file and is taken up for final hearing along with this group of applications. 4. Applicants of all the Special Criminal Applications have prayed for quashing of FIR being I – C.R. No.50 of 2018 registered with Dholera Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) and to stay the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. The FIR is lodged for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was the case of the complainant – Piyushbhai Bhogilal Shah that by way of registered sale deed, executed on 01.10.2014, he purchased a parcel of land old revenue survey No.4/2, (New Revenue Survey No.408) at Village : Valinda admeasuring 43,226 sq. yards. It is alleged that after the purchase of land he was given promise by the present applicants, who are named in the impugned FIR, that out of 43,226 sq. yards, 7000 sq. yards would be put up for sale for the interest of customers. yards. It is alleged that after the purchase of land he was given promise by the present applicants, who are named in the impugned FIR, that out of 43,226 sq. yards, 7000 sq. yards would be put up for sale for the interest of customers. The complainant stated that after the lawful possession of the land and his name being mutated in the revenue record in the year 2014, the persons named in the impugned FIR, by creating website 'www.metrocity.com DMC 2000' tried to sell 207 plots of land for Rs.2991/ sq. yard. 6. The complainant – Piyushbhai Shah Son of Bhogilal Shah has filed affidavit as respondent no.2 in all the matters stating that there was some misunderstanding on his part, which is now removed. He has no grievance against the accused persons. He realized that the FIR was filed in haste, as after registration of the FIR, he inquired and came to understand the correct facts, thus, has no objection if the impugned FIR registered against the accused persons is quashed. 7. Complainant – Piyushbhai Shah has further stated that he had addressed complaints against the accused to various departments, authorities, police station as well as before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. He came to know under the Right to Information Act that in most of the complaints thorough inquiry/investigation has been done by the concerned authorities and his complaints were later filed. 8. In context to his first grievance, he has stated in his affidavit that for unsold 7000 sq. yards of plot, he has got a good offer so does not propose to sell the plot through the accused with brokerage. And for his another grievance, he has stated that on verification of entire record of the documents shown by his vendor of the land-in-question, he is fully satisfied that there is no double selling and that he is the exclusive owner of the land-in-question and thus now, has no grievance against the persons named in the impugned FIR and thus, do not wish to continue any prosecution against 1.Miteshbhai Haribhai Kakkad, 2. Pankajkumar Ramniklal Patel, 3. Ranchhodbhai Muljibhai Patel(Kanani), 4. Ankit Chandubhai Patel, 5. Akshay Dhirubhai Patel and 6. Pankajbhai Madhusudanbhai Bhatt. 9. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that any first information report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein. Pankajkumar Ramniklal Patel, 3. Ranchhodbhai Muljibhai Patel(Kanani), 4. Ankit Chandubhai Patel, 5. Akshay Dhirubhai Patel and 6. Pankajbhai Madhusudanbhai Bhatt. 9. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that any first information report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein. 10. Considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 , the present matter would fall under the criteria laid down therein. In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has been observed thus: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 11. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the issue as to whether an FIR lodged for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 34 IPC could be quashed on the basis of the settlement between the parties. While considering the said issue, the Apex Court observed in para-13 thus: “13. While considering the said issue, the Apex Court observed in para-13 thus: “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: (i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; (ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; (iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; (iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; (v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 12. In the present case, the FIR being I – C.R. No.50 of 2018 was filed on 06.12.2018 and the affidavit of complainant- Piyushbhai Bhogilal Shah is dated 04.07.2020 in all the matters. Admittedly, the dispute is a private and personal affair. The dispute was regarding the parcel of land which the complainant had purchased by registered sale deed. The grievances have been resolved as stated in the affidavit of the complainant. Thus, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there exists no scope for any further proceeding in the matter. The continuance of proceedings would lead to wastage of precious judicial time as there would remain no possibility of any conviction in the case. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that these are the fit cases where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised for securing the ends of justice. 13. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that these are the fit cases where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised for securing the ends of justice. 13. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. The first information report bearing C.R. No. I-50 of 2018 registered with Dholera Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural), District : Ahmedabad and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. 14. Copy of this order be placed in other cognate matters.