- (1.)RULE. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari and learned advocate, Mr.Jigar P Raval, waive service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
(2.)THE present application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of FIR registered as I.C.R.No.25 of 2011 before Ranavav Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.384, 447, 466, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC in pursuance of complaint filed by the respondent No.2-complainant.
Heard learned advocate, Mr.A.M.Dagli for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate, Mr.Jigar P.Raval, for the respondent No.2.

It is jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the matter is settled between the parties. An undertaking affirmed by the applicant on 14-6-2011 is produced by the learned advocate for the applicant, Dagli. Same is ordered to be taken on record. According to Mr.Jigar Raval, the dispute which is private nature of dispute is settled between the applicant and the complainant.

(3.)THE Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 Supreme Court Cases page 582 has observed as under in paras 5 and 7 of the judgment:
5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out.

7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. THE outer limit of Rs.250/- which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.

Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Cri. Misc. Application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence.