Oral Order

1. Learned advocate Ms. P.R.Mistry, states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama, which is granted. She is permitted to file her appearance and Registry to accept the same.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Shah as also learned advocate Ms. Mistry, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal  forthwith.

5. By way of this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.11196007250288 of 2025 registered with Gorva Police Station, District - Vadodara City for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

6. Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement vide settlement deed dated 04.05.2026, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit dated 04.05.2026, which is ordered to be taken on record. The original complainant is present before the Court and duly identified by learned advocate Ms. Mistry. As per the settlement terms arrived at between the parties, the cheque bearing No.506269 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- dated 04.05.2026, of Yes Bank, Karelibaug Branch is handed over to the complainant. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved through intervention of the elderly persons of our community and that she has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Y.J.Patel, under the instructions of his client, would state that the present applicant would not indulge in such activities, for which he is facing the impugned FIR.

8. Learned APP Ms. Shah, would only state that after registration of the FIR, whereabouts of the applicant is not available and as such, the applicant is facing the warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS. Nonetheless, learned APP is not in a position to confirm as to whether any previous antecedents of the applicant.

9. Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of - (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, (ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the applicant. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 528 of the BNSS.

10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.11196007250288 of 2025 registered with Gorva Police Station, District - Vadodara City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. If the applicant is in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the applicant forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

11. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.