PRAKASHBHAI H. RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. K.P .Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.M. Gohil, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

(2.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as it is reported that the dispute is settled between the parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) IT is reported by learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that now the dispute has been settled between the parties amicably and Respondent No. 2 ­ original complainant has no objection, if the impugned complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside in view of the settlement between the parties. Respondent No. 2 ­ original complainant is also personally present in the Court. He has submitted that even he has been paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - by cash towards expenditure incurred by him for the treatment. Therefore, he has stated that he has no objection if the impugned complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside and has requested to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR in the larger interest of the parties.