ORDER : 1. Mr. Dipen Chaudhary, learned advocate submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent no.2 – original complainant. He seeks permission to file Vakalatnama before the Registry. The vakalatnama be accepted and taken on record. 2. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the parties waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith. 3. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-150/2019 registered with Bapunagar Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad for offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 114 of IPC and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. 4. Mr. Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that, the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and that there remains no grievance between them. He submits that the matter has been settled since the applicant and the victim girl, aged about 17 years 11 months and 13 days at the time of incident, got married and are residing together, and out of the wedlock they have a child. Mr. Chaudhary submits that the settlement is peaceful and without any force and coercion and to that effect they have filed the affidavit and therefore, in the larger interest of society, the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Dpien Chaudhary, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that the parents are willingly accepted the marriage and the applicant and victim girl are residing happily. He submits that the complainant has no objection if the F.I.R. would be quashed. Mr. Chaudary further submitted that affidavit of the complainant, victim girl and father of the victim are produced on record to affirm and confirm the fact that the settlement is amicable. 6. Both the parents and the victim, deponents of the affidavits, are present before this Court and the Court verified the factum of settlement. The victim girl states that she on her own volition left the parental home and joined the petitioner and states that now she is mother of a child. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, mother of the victim girl, categorically stated that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by her. 7. Ms. The respondent no.2 - original complainant, mother of the victim girl, categorically stated that she has no grievance against the petitioners and that she has no objection to the quashment of the impugned first information report filed by her. 7. Ms. Hardik Mehta, learned APP, submitted that any First Information Report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein. 8. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the sides and has perused the material on record. The affidavits of complainant, victim girl and father of the victim dated 06.01.2023 are produced on record. In the Affidavit dated 06.08.2021, filed by respondent no.2 - original complainant, it has been categorically averred that the dispute with the petitioners has been amicably resolved by the intervention of family members and other society people. 9. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. The Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:- “8.1. The Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:- “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. 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 2 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. 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. 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. 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.” 11. In the present case, the impugned complaint was filed on 03.11.2019 and the Affidavits of the original complainant - respondent no.2 herein, victim and father of the victim regarding settlement of the dispute has been executed on 06.01.2023. Admittedly, the dispute is a private and personal affair. The injury sustained does not involve any mental depravity nor amounts to a heinous crime. The parties have been staying together as family. 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. The parties have been staying together as family. 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 this is a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised for securing the ends of justice. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-150/2019 registered with Bapunagar Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad and the proceedings, if any, initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.