JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota in Criminal Case No. 764/94, State v. Gurupal Singh and Ors. 2. The circumstances leading to the present petition may be narrated in brief as under : The wife Smt. Gurjeet Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate (North) Kota under Sections 420, 406 and 498A Indian Penal Code against her husband Gurupal Singh and her father-in-law and mother-in-law. From the averments of the complaint it transpires that Smt. Gurjeet Kaur was married to the petitioner Gurupal Singh on September, 21 1991 in accordance with their religious rites and eremonies, but their marriage did not prove successful. According to her, she was subjected to cruelty and no love and affection was given to her by her husband. According to her, the articles and ornaments, which are 'Stridhan' were also not returned by the accused persons even on making a demand. The charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code was alleged in the complaint on the ground that the husband-petitioner was impotent and this fact was concealed by him and his parents before the marriage. This complaint was forwarded under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 Criminal Procedure Code to Police Station, Vigyan Nagar, Kota for registration of case. Thereupon, Crime No. 29/94 was registered at the aforesaid Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 498A Indian Penal Code During investigation, it appears that some articles were taken in custody by he Police from the petitioners and the same have been handed over to the wife under the orders of the Court. 3. The petitioners have moved this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash the proceedings on the ground that the complainant-wife was never subjected to mal-treatment or cruelty by any of the petitioners as disclosed from various letters which have been filed alongwith this petition and some of those letters are said to have been written by the complainant-Smt. Gurjeet Kaur @ Neelu. It has also been stated in the petition that the Police as well as the Courts at Kota had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or register the case as the marriage of the complainant with petitioner-Gurupal Singh had taken place at Amritsar and no cause of action had arisen at Kota. 4. Normally, this Court does not entertain such petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, specially when the facts alleged in the petition are subject-matter of inquiry in the criminal case itself. I am also of the opinion that this Court cannot quash the proceedings merely on the basis of certain letters written by the relatives to the complainant or the complainant herself, unless those letters are proved during the inquiry, but some special circumstances have come before this Court. 5. On 21.3.1995 this Court gave notice to the complainant-wife on payment of Rs. 1100/- as expenses by the petitioners. In pursuance to that notice the wife appeared before this Court on April 10, 1995 alongwith her mother. The wishes of the wife were obtained in chambers where she appeared alongwith her mother. She expressed her desire to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as she was not interested to prosecute them. It was also expressed by her that she wanted to live a new life and it has been settled between the parties to obtain divorce by mutual consent. She also stated that she would move a compromise petition also before this Court. Thereafter, a petition has been filed before this Court which has been signed by the complainant-wife Gurjeet Kaur, her mother Smt. Gyan Kanwar and the petitioners Gurupal Singh and Santokh Singh. The compromise petition reads as under: "The humble petitioners and Smt. Gurjeet Kanwar jointly submit the following application: (i) That a petition for divorce has been filed jointly by the present petitioners and Smt. Gurjeet Kanwar before the Competent Court of law by mutual consent for purpose of divorce. (ii) That the applicant, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur has received all the goods/ articles/properties from the petitioners and nothing is due at present. (iii) That both the parties, i.e., the petitioners and Smt. Gurjeet Kanwar want to live peacefully and they do not want to prolong any litigation which may cause mental agony and/or inconvenience to both the parties. (ii) That the applicant, Smt. Gurjeet Kaur has received all the goods/ articles/properties from the petitioners and nothing is due at present. (iii) That both the parties, i.e., the petitioners and Smt. Gurjeet Kanwar want to live peacefully and they do not want to prolong any litigation which may cause mental agony and/or inconvenience to both the parties. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate orders may kindly be passed and F.I.R. No. 29/94 of P.S. Vigyan Nagar, Kota be quashed, in view of the contention and submissions made hereinabove." 6. This Court has taken a consistent view that even though the offences may not compoundable, but this Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if the ends of justice so demanded. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in Om Prakash Modi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [ 1994 (1) RLR 389 ] and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 442/94, Surendra and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, decided on May 4, 1994. 7. In Om Prakash Modi's case (supra) it has been observed as under: "I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, they 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. Sometimes 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. 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." 8. In the instant case, the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner Gurupal Singh has proved unsuccessful right from the very beginning. Instead of leading such a life under tension, the husband and wife have decided to seek divorce by mutual consent and they have moved to the Competent Court in this connection. All the articles and ornaments belonging to the wife have been returned to her. The wife also wants to lead a new life forgetting her past. If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, her present marriage with the petitioner Gurupal Singh will remain haunting on her new life and it may spoil her new life. Therefore, it is in the interest of all that the chapter of the old life should be closed and the parties be given an opportunity to enjoy fresh air of new life. Applying the ratio of Om Prakash Modi's case (supra), the ends of justice require that criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed in the present case in the special circumstances narrated above. 9. Consequently, I allow this petition and quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Cr. Case No. 764/94, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Kota.Petition allowed. *******