JUDGMENT : ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J. The Great Philosopher of England, Bentham, opined that, “The Purpose Of LawIs To Have Greatest Happiness To Greatest Number Of Persons”. But, while dealing with criminal justice system, what Philosopher Austin said, “LawIs The Command Of Sovereign”, therefore, if I go straightway to, deterrent aspects of criminal justice system, the welfare of children and parents would be jeopardized, therefore, inadvertent mistakes of parents to proceed with the FIR through minor, and also against minor, may drive to miscarriage of justice, especially when there is amicable settlement, therefore, striking the balance in special case, this court prefers to allow the amicable settlement in such serious case for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, just to maintain peace and harmony in society of four family, wherein, I have also assistance of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832/2020 in case of Gajraj Ramabhai Hajani Through Ramabhai Pithabhai Hajani v. State of Gujarat dated 20.10.2020 (wherein the sister of the present petitioner agreed for settlement through parents and FIR Quashed) Further, this court has also considered that pursuant to the theory of law by Great Philosopher Bentham, Happiness Should Be More And Suffering Pain Should Be Less. Be that as it may, if the trial goes on, in such cases, whole life of both the minors would become stigmatized and bad for the society too. Keeping in mind all such thoughts of “Judicial Process”, the verdict of this petition is as under. 1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR being No. A- 11202057200318 of 2020 registered with Sikka Police Station, District-Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with all further and consequential proceedings including arising pursuant to the said FIR. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani for the applicant, learned APP for the Respondent-State of Gujarat through video conference and learned Advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the Respondent No.2-Original Complainant. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani for the applicant, learned APP for the Respondent-State of Gujarat through video conference and learned Advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the Respondent No.2-Original Complainant. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Piyush Parmar has identified the Complainant who is present in the video conference. Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of learned Advocate Mr. Piyush Parmar and place on record. 4. The facts in nutshell are that the Respondent No.2 on 10.8.2020 has filed FIR against the Petitioner inter-alia alleging that his son-Gajraj had married to one Laxmiben, who happens to be the sister of the Petitioner. It has been further alleged that the elder daughter of the complainant named Mangiben aged about 16 years, got engaged to one Jesurabhai Valabhai Naran and that the younger daughter of the complainant named Maliben got engaged to the petitioner. It is alleged that as the petitioner and Maliben were engaged to each other since childhood, the petitioner used to visit the residence on frequent occasions and that on 9.8.2020, the petitioner eloped with the elder daughter of the complainant named Mangiben and thereafter, the complainant has filed the present FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. That, later on, the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant were found on 13.8.2020 and thereafter the police filed a report before the learned Board for adding Sections 376(2), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 4, 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act. That the petitioner was taken to observation home by the police as the petitioner was minor, aged about 15 years 4 months. It is further the case that the sister of the petitioner named Laxmiben had married with the son of the complainant i.e. Gajraj @ Gajjo Ramabhai Hajani. The sister of the complainant is of a tender age and son of the complainant, by taking advantage of her immaturity, had committed an act of rape on multiple occasions, for which the sister of the petitioner had filed FIR against son of the complainant-Gajraj with Sikka Police Station, Jamnagar for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act. That the Accused has preferred a quashing petition before the Coordinate Bench, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832 of 2020, wherein the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to protect the Accused. That the Accused has preferred a quashing petition before the Coordinate Bench, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832 of 2020, wherein the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to protect the Accused. Further, after filing of the impugned FIR, the parties decided to amicably resolve the dispute and therefore, the parties have decided to burry litigation. The petitioner states that the respondent no. 2 has also sworn in the affidavit stating that there are no heart burnings amongst the parties and the dispute inter-se has been resolved amicably. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted to the Court that now an amicable settlement is arrived at between the Complainant and the applicant Accused and the Affidavit to that effect is also placed on record at Annexure- C. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has also placed on record the Affidavit in vernacular dated 17.9.2020 between the Original Complainant-Ramabhai Pithabhai Hajani and Vijaybhai Bhayabhai Sumat and Maliben Vijaybhai Sumat is also placed on record at page no.28. He further submitted that the applicant Accused has no antecedents and therefore, the discretion may be exercised by this Hon'ble Court and the Application may be allowed and FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. 6. Learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon the affidavit of the complainant coupled with order passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832 of 2020 dated 20.10.2020 wherein the sister of petitioner had made amicable settlement and the Coordinate Bench has considered the settlement, and four different authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, viz. (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, (iii) a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973 and (iv) Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736. 7. Learned advocate for the Respondent no. 2 has placed on record Affidavit sworn by the Respondent No. 2-original complainant dated 17.09.2020. The Affidavit reads thus: “5. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973 and (iv) Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736. 7. Learned advocate for the Respondent no. 2 has placed on record Affidavit sworn by the Respondent No. 2-original complainant dated 17.09.2020. The Affidavit reads thus: “5. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I at my free will, wish and desire am stating on oath that as the dispute between us has been amicably settled, the complaint filed being FIR being C.R. No. 11202057200329 with Sikka Police Station, Dist. Jamnagar and all proceedings arising there from and pursuant thereto, for the offences punishable u/s. 376 of IPC & Section 4 & 12 of POCSO Act may be quashed in the interest of justice.” 8. Learned Advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for the original complainant have submitted that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by way of affidavit which is produced on record. Therefore, they have submitted that the Application may be allowed and the FIR may be quashed. 9. Learned APP has heavily opposed the quashing petition and placed reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others and Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat and submitted that rape with POCSO are not permissible to be settled on the ground of settlement. Therefore, the court may not quash the FIR. 10. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also referred the authorities submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed as under: “8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary powers to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary powers to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of theses powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.” 12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following words: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines 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 victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s 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. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavor 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 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.” The Court in Gian Singh case was categorical that in respect of serious offences or other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely decoity under special statute, like the prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity. The mere settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such heinous crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court.” (ii) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229756, held as under: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S.482-Indian Penal Code, 1860-S.504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 326-Arms Act, 1959-S.25(1) (c)- Bombay Police Act, 1951-S.135(1)-quashing of the criminal complaint- dispute between the parties is of private and personal nature-complainant has admitted that the complainant and original accused i.e. the applicants have voluntarily settled the dispute-complainant-respondent No.2 has also admitted that he does not want to prosecute the complaint further qua the applicants-held no fruitful purpose will not be served in continuing the prosecution of the complaint-fit case for exercising powers u/s. 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of Court-criminal complaint quashed-application allowed.” (iii) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231973, held as under: “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 482-Indian Penal Code, 1860-S. 120B, 307, 326-Arms Act, 1959-25(1)(b), 25(1)(a)-quashing of complaint-applicant was not named as an accused in the complaint but was shown as witness-however later on investigating officer joined him as an accused-compromise and settlement between the parties-both the sides present before the Court-complainant filed an affidavit in support of the applicant/accused and confirmed about the settlement-denial of allegation by the complainant against the applicant-no objection to the complainant if complaint is quashed qua applicant only-case of narinder Singh (Supra) referred and relied upon-fit case to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code-complaint qua applicant quashed-application allowed.” (iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arun Singh And Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Secretary And Another, reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736, has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal wherein quashing petition was allowed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and it was held that when there is abuse of process of law the FIR is required to be quashed. (v) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240101 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2019) has observed as under: “27. (v) The Coordinate Bench has passed a judgment in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240101 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1399 of 2019) has observed as under: “27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. Sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.” 12. Upon all such authorities, which have been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants, authorities nos. (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat and (iii) Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat are fully applicable to the present case. Upon all such authorities, which have been submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants, authorities nos. (i) in case of Narender Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (ii) Iqbal Dawood Hala Vs. State of Gujarat and (iii) Janki Chintan Shah Vs. State of Gujarat are fully applicable to the present case. In addition to that this Court has also referred to the latest order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in case of Kalubhai Virabhai Thakor (Mauluna) v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240101 and therefore this Court is of the view that when the parties have amicably settled the disputes in such offences, there is no requirement of trial and same would be against the ends of justice. Therefore, FIR is required to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and the authorities cited by the learned advocate for the applicant, it transpires that the offence is registered upon the applicant Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. There is amicable settlement arrived at between the complainant and the accused person by way of an affidavit, therefore, it would be futile exercise if the trial shall take place and the purpose of the same would not be served and therefore in view of this Court, it would be just and proper to quash the aforesaid FIR. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the further development that took place in the matter as come forward by way of an Affidavit by the Respondent No.2-Original Complainant, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that now the cause does not survive and therefore the FIR may be quashed and set aside. 15. Thus, after the criminal machinery was set in motion at the behest of the complainant, she is not desirous to proceed with the impugned F.I.R. on the ground of settlement which is arrived between the families. Though, this Court is not detrimental or averse to the settlement arrived at between the families, but the reckless and irresponsible demeanor of the parents of both the boy and the girl cannot be ignored. Though, this Court is not detrimental or averse to the settlement arrived at between the families, but the reckless and irresponsible demeanor of the parents of both the boy and the girl cannot be ignored. [Observation by the Co-ordinate Bench in Quashing Petition filed by the sister of the present Petitioner.] 16. There is a prelude to the aforesaid registration of the F.I.R. which needs to be mentioned. Respondent No.2 on 10.8.2020 has filed FIR against the Petitioner inter-alia alleging that his son-Gajraj had married to one Laxmiben, who happens to be the sister of the Petitioner. It has been further alleged that the elder daughter of the complainant named Mangiben aged about 16 years, got engaged to one Jesurabhai Valabhai Naran and that the younger daughter of the complainant named Maliben got engaged to the petitioner. It is alleged that as the petitioner and Maliben were engaged to each other since childhood, the petitioner used to visit the residence on frequent occasions and that on 9.8.2020, the petitioner eloped with the elder daughter of the complainant named Mangiben and thereafter, the complainant has filed the present FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. That, later on, the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant were found on 13.8.2020 and thereafter the police filed a report before the learned Board for adding Sections 376(2), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 4, 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act. That the petitioner was taken to observation home by the police as the petitioner was minor, aged about 15 years 4 months. It is further the case that the sister of the petitioner named Laxmiben had married with the son of the complainant i.e. Gajraj @ Gajjo Ramabhai Hajani. The sister of the complainant is of a tender age and son of the complainant, by taking advantage of her immaturity, had committed an act of rape on multiple occasions, for which the sister of the petitioner had filed FIR against son of the complainant-Gajraj with Sikka Police Station, Jamnagar fo the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act. That the Accused has preferred a quashing petition before the Coordinate Bench being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832 of 2020, wherein the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to protect the Accused. That the Accused has preferred a quashing petition before the Coordinate Bench being Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832 of 2020, wherein the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to protect the Accused. Further, after filing of the impugned FIR, the parties decided to amicably resolve the dispute and therefore, the parties have decided to burry litigation. 16.1 The parents of the prosecutrix were well aware of all the consequences of getting her married at the tender age. Uniformly, the parents of the petitioner are also responsible. Both the parents have imprisoned the minors in marriage and forced them to develop relationship of husband and wife which is a gross violation of their human rights. They are forced by the parents to face the rigors of married life at the tender age despite their being a prohibition under the law. Thus, the genesis of the impugned FIR lies in the child marriage arraigned by the respective parents. It also appears that the FIR is lodged at the behest of the parents invoking provisions of serious offences. The petitioner, a minor is embroiled in the serious offence of rape by the prosecutrix at the behest of her parents without realizing the consequences. In her tender age the prosecutrix is also made to understand the immorality and dire consequence of offence of rape. The childhood of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix is obliterated by their parents, on two counts, first by marrying them in tender age, and secondly, by involving them in the offence of rape. The facts are suggestive that the minors are used as weapons in order to satisfy their prejudices and egos. The prosecution is lodged taking shelter under the minority of the prosecutrix. The quashing of the F.I.R. is sought by citing the minor age and marriage of the petitioner. [Observation by the Coordinate Bench in Quashing Petition filed by the sister of the present petitioner.] 17. This Court is of the opinion that the criminal machinery alleging such serious offences under I.P.C and POCSO cannot be allowed to be misused and the parents of such children who resort such tactics cannot be let-off easily without fastening any accountability. Sufficient time has been devoted by the investigating authority in conducting the investigation. The prosecutrix was also produced before the concerned Magistrate. A great deal of time is consumed of this Court including the registry. Sufficient time has been devoted by the investigating authority in conducting the investigation. The prosecutrix was also produced before the concerned Magistrate. A great deal of time is consumed of this Court including the registry. Hence, in order to avoid such misuse of the penal provisions, I am of the considered opinion that the time is ripe to fasten the liability for sheer wastage of time of State and the Court. Hence, I consider appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 30,000/-. It shall be deposited before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Since the parents of both the prosecutrix and the petitioner are responsible for ruining their childhood by dragging them in such a disreputable controversy, the cost shall be shared by them equally. 18. In order to see that the relationship between the families does not further deteriorate and the life of both the petitioner and the prosecutrix is maintained smoothly and effortlessly, the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside in view of the settlement arrived at between the concerned parties. This Court is conscious of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v/s. Laxmi Narayan (supra). The law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the submissions advanced by the learned APP are rejected. 19. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also observed in identical cross case in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12832 of 2020 in order dated 20.10.2020. Which reads as under: “I may part with the observations of (His Lordship K.S.P.Radhkrishnan, J in the case of Aarushi Dhasmana V. Union of India, 2013 (9) SCC 475 )-“Law of this land has always recognised the rights of parents with their wards/minors and first and foremost consideration of the Court is "welfare of the children", which overrides the views or opinions of the parents.” 20. Pursuant to FIR, it appears that the dispute is settled and therefore, in view of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2-original complainant have been amicably settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and thereby peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. Moreover, any further continuation of proceedings in this matter would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it would be expedient to quash the subject- FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant vested under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. FIR being No.A-11202057200318 of 2020 registered with Sikka Police Station, District- Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with all further and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside with costs. 22. Lastly, before parting with, it is made clear that, upon peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, quashing is made, this may not be treated as precedent in every case. 23. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The Petitioner and the Complainant are directed to jointly deposit the cost of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of the order of this court. 24. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and concerned Police Station as well as to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, through e-mail/fax.