V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Hari Chand and others praying for quashing of proceedings in FIR No. 281/86 under Section 406/498a read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Police station Ashok Vihar, pending in the Court of Ms. Swam Kanta Shrma, Metropolitan Magistrate. ( 2 ) IN a nutshell the facts are that Hansral. petitioner No. 2 was married to Madhu, respondent No. 3, according to Hindu rule and customs on 20. 2. 1982 and out of this wedlock they were blessed with two children, Viz. Goldy and Parul. Hari Chand is the father. Ghanshyam Dass and Gulshan are the brothers and Ginni is the sister of Hansraj, petitioner No. 2. ( 3 ) THERE was some misunderstanding between the petiteness and Madhu on account of which she left the house of her in-law and made a complaint to the police on 26. 6. 86 on the basis of which FIR No. 281/ 86 was recorded at Police Station Ashok Vihar under Section 406/498a read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and challan has already been filed against the petitiones. ( 4 ) HANSRAJ filed a petition for divorce and another petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, while Ms. Madhu filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, at the intervention of relations they have removed their misunderstanding and arrived at a settlement on the basis of which all other litigation between the parties has been withdrawn and Madhu has been selected residing with her-in-laws since 30. 11. 1990. Since then they have been residing together and it is in these circumstances that this petition has been filed. ( 6 ) MADHU in her statement on path corroborated the facts narrated above. She has also stated that she is now happily residing with her husband having ho dispute with the in-laws. Hansraj has admitted the statement of his wife to be correct. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was misunderstanding between the petitioners and Madhu on account of which there was matrimonial discord between madhu and her husband. Hansraj has admitted the statement of his wife to be correct. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was misunderstanding between the petitioners and Madhu on account of which there was matrimonial discord between madhu and her husband. Fortunately, at the intervention of the relations, misunderstanding between the parties have since been removed and Madhu is living happily with her husband and in -laws he has, thus, submitted that it would be to the benefit of the parties that the criminal proceedings are not continued. Learned counsel for Ms. Madhu, respondent No. 2, supports the submissions. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that the petitioners are the accused persons in the aforesaid case; facing trial for the offence under Section 406/498a read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code and that the State has no Objection to the petition being allowed. Even otherwise I find that after considerable effort husband and wife have been able to sort out their differences and for over three years now they are living happily. It would, in these circumstances, be in the interest of parties as also of the State that these proceedings are not continued. ( 9 ) AS a result, the petition is allowed and proceedings in the case State Vs. Hari Chand and Others in Case FIR No. 281/86. Police Station Ashok Vihar under Section 406/498a read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Ms. Swam Kanta Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, are quashed.