JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Om Prakash Modi alongwith his counsel Shri Ashok Mishra present. Mr. R. S. Agrawal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present, and Smt. Kalawati alias Chandrakala is present in person. 2. The wishes of Smt. Kalawati alias Chandrakala, wife of the petitioner Om Prakash, were obtained in Chambers, in which, she has disclosed that she was living with her husband Om Prakash Modi. She also stated that she was living peacefully and amicably and there were two children from their wedlock. Now she had no grievance against her husband or any of his relatives though, on account of some misunderstanding she filed a complaint against them on the basis of which a charge-sheet has been filed. She has expressed that she does not want to continue the criminal proceedings against her husband and his other relatives, as it would not be in her interest. That she wanted to live peacefully and happily with her husband and the continuation of criminal proceedings may again spoil their matrimonial relations. She has, therefore, supported the petitioners that the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 323 Indian Penal Code in criminal Case No. 6/93 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambharlake arising from FIR No. 135/92 be quashed. 3. The circumstances under which the present petition has been filed may be briefly stated. The non-petitioner Smt. Kalawati alias Chandrakala was married to the petitioner Om Prakash Modi on February 27, 1990. Their matrimonial relations were quite happy, but, some time in the month of September 1992 some mis-understanding croped in and a report was made by her at police station Shastri Nagar on 9.9.92. The said report, later on, was transmitted to police Station Sambharlake for investigation. After usual investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 323 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambharlake, which is still pending in the said court. 4. During the pendancy of the criminal case good sense prevailed between the husband and wife and they felt repentance for what that had happened in the past. The non-petitioner wife, on the one hand, was feeling guilty for having initiated criminal case against her husband and other members of in-laws family. 4. During the pendancy of the criminal case good sense prevailed between the husband and wife and they felt repentance for what that had happened in the past. The non-petitioner wife, on the one hand, was feeling guilty for having initiated criminal case against her husband and other members of in-laws family. The husband was also repentant for not being much considerate towards the wife. The mutual repentance of husband and wife again brought them near to each other and they started living together. There is no dispute that for the last 5 months the non-petitioner-wife has been living with her husband Om Prakash Modi, Petitioner No. 1, and she is fully satisfied with the behaviour of her husband and his other family members. 5. The complainant and the accused persons, therefore, filed a compromise petition before the Trial Magistrate to accord permission to compound the offences. The offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code was compoundable, as such, the accused were acquitted of the charge under section 323 Indian Penal Code on the basis of the compromise. However, the prayer to compound the offence under section 320 Criminal Procedure Code The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. There is no dispute that the offence under section 320 Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Magistrate was right in declining permission to compound the said offence. It is now settled by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court that permission to compound offence cannot be given if the same is not compoundable under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. But the question does not end here. Further the question is whether this Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and if so, whether it is a fit case, in which, the inherent powers should be exercised by this Court. In Surendra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 442/94 decided on May 4, 1994 this court has taken a view that proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in a criminal case to secure the ends of justice even the offence is non-compoundable. 8. I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, then being offences, against the society. P.C. in a criminal case to secure the ends of justice even the offence is non-compoundable. 8. I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, then being offences, against the society. Adjustment and tolerance are safer ways for a happy married life. Incidents do take place between a wife and husband and the best way to resolve their dispute is to discuss and find out their mutual solution, instead of seeking intervention of a third party. Some times hasty steps are taken in a state of excitement either by the husband or wife when a family dispute exists, but on a subsequent cool thinking the mistake is realised. In such cases the courts are expected to administer justice in practical manner with a view to seek that family ties are not broken. If the wife has started to live with the husband and she is satisfied with his behaviour and the behaviour of his relatives, then it is always in their interest, interest of their children and the society that Court should be a party in maintaining their matrimonial relations. In the instant case, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued, it will be a mere harassment to the parties with no fruitful result, rather the apprehension is that it may again spoil the matrimonial relations between the husband and wife. To avoid that situation, the ends of justice require that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in the present case. 9. Consequently, I allow this petition and quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners, as discussed above.Petition allowed. *******