JUDGMENT M.V. Tamaskar, J. 1. This is an application by the wife for quashing the prosecution of the husband Under Section 498 Cr.P.C. 2. Parties were married in sometime 1985. They have developed restrain relations and on 11-2-86 the wife made a report to the Police Station for harassment. Case was registered and challan was filed before the Court. A compromise application was filed on 25-2-92 on the ground that they have amicably settled their dispute as such the prosecution against the husband be dropped. 3. During the course of the prosecution, a suit for divorce was filed by the husband and also a prosecution Under Section 496 was initiated by the wife. Both these litigations were withdrawn and the wife is living with the applicant peacefully till this date when the case come for hearing before this Court. 4. Section 498A is not compoundable. However the submission of the applicant is in view of the fact that the parties have solved their problems, the prosecution of the husband will vitiate the peace that has been arrived at between the parties. Shri Gothalwal Counsel for the applicant has relied on several decisions whereby the Courts have allowed compromise in respect of Section 498 A.I.P.C. though legally no compromise can be arrived at. The Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1988 S.C. 2111 ) allowed the compromise Under Section 307 IPC. Though the offence Under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, the Court took into consideration the prevailing circumstances when the appeal was heard in the Supreme Court and allowed compromise. In 1992 Criminal Law Journal, 273, the wife started living during the pendency of the prosecution with the husband, the Rajasthan High Court allowed compromise. In 1991 Criminal Law Journal, 749 during the course of the proceedings the compromise was permitted. Similar was the case in Subhash Chander Chopra v. State and Anr. (I (1992) DMC 487). Taking into consideration a series of judgments and the view taken by the different Courts, in order to restore the peace in the life of the two, the application for compromise is allowed. Even if the prosecution is continued, the wife may not come forward to support the prosecution. Interest of justice requires that the parties intention to live peacefully should be accepted rather than allow them to continue to fight by keeping the prosecution pending. 5. Even if the prosecution is continued, the wife may not come forward to support the prosecution. Interest of justice requires that the parties intention to live peacefully should be accepted rather than allow them to continue to fight by keeping the prosecution pending. 5. The application is allowed. In view of the compromise arrived at, the prosecution pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur in Cr. Case No. 430/86 shall stand dismissed.