( 1 ) CRL W. NO. 4/2000this is a joint petition by the husband and wife as well as the complainant theauthor of FIR seeking quashing of FIR and the proceedings pending before themetropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari. Delhi which was registered under Section 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 2, the husband and petitioner No. 3, the brother-in-law, petitioner No. 4, the father-in-law and petitioner No. 5, the mother-in-law ofpetitioner No. 1. The said case was registered as FIR No-306/94 within the jurisdictionof Police Station Model Town. The report was lodged by the father of petitioner No. 1shri Raj Kumar Gambhir alleging therein that his son-in-law petitioner No. 2 Shribharat Bhushan Satija had been ill-treating his daughter Smt. Neelam Satija, petitionerno. 1 on account of the demand for dowry. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of these proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate,tis Hazari, Delhi, at the intervention of the relations, a compromise was arrived atpursuance to which the petitionerno. l wentto petitioner No. 2 and they started livingas husband and wife. Now for the last one and half years they are living as husbandand wife. From this wedlock they have got a son Master Sidharth Satija aged aboutseven years. ( 3 ) THAT since the husband and wife i. e. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are living happily forthe last one and half years, therefore, petitioner No. 6, author of the FIR has decidedto get the FIR lodged by him under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code to be quashed. ( 4 ) STATEMENTS of husband and wife as well as of the Author of FIR have beenrecorded separately which shows that the petitioner No. . 1, the wife and petitionerno. 2 the husband are living happily with their child for the last one and half years andthat now there 8s no complaint against each other. ( 5 ) NOTICE of this petition was issued to the State, which was accepted by Mr. H. J. S. Ahluwalia. Parties were identified by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rohitminocha. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the offences which are non-compoundable in relation to the quashingof the offences, the High Court has to act with more caution and circumspection. ( 5 ) NOTICE of this petition was issued to the State, which was accepted by Mr. H. J. S. Ahluwalia. Parties were identified by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rohitminocha. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the offences which are non-compoundable in relation to the quashingof the offences, the High Court has to act with more caution and circumspection. Butat the same time, we cannot say that the power of the High Court vis-a-vis non-compoundable offences is totally curtailed or that the High Court is without poweralthough parties have settled their disputes amicably. If this proposition is accepted itwould be to make the provisions of Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. negatory and ineffective. The power of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. is plenary. It is neithertattered by any provision of the Code and certainly not by Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code. Solong as these powers are exercised to secure the end of justice and to stop the abuseof the process of the Court, it will be within the frame work of the Code of Criminalprocedure. The compromise in modern society is a sine-qua-non of harmony. Exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. any disputes whichemanates out of the matrimonial differences are to advance the course of justice. Nouseful purpose will be served if the parties who have amicably settled their disputes,buried their past and want to live in a spirit of peace and harmony are allowed to dragon with criminal litigation. It will be against the spirit of the Act to relegate them beforethe Police and the Courts specially when they have settled their disputes. That will besheer abuse of the process of the Court. Instead of securing justice, it would amountto perpetuating injustice to such parties. In the present case the husband and wifehave settled their differences. They are living together for the last one and half years. Hence, the petitioner No. 6 father of the wife i. e petitioner No. 1 after having givenenough time to the parties to find out whether it has become possible for them to livetogether and after having been satisfied that the husband and wife alongwith theirchild are living happily and in harmony that he has-sought quashing of the FIR. Hence, the petitioner No. 6 father of the wife i. e petitioner No. 1 after having givenenough time to the parties to find out whether it has become possible for them to livetogether and after having been satisfied that the husband and wife alongwith theirchild are living happily and in harmony that he has-sought quashing of the FIR. No. useful purpose will be served in such a case to prolong the litigation particularly whenthe complainant himself is not ready to proceed with the same. It would rather disturbthe harmony and peace of the husband and wife and their family. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, we deem it fit to exercise the inherent power of thiscourt and quash the FIR No. 306/94 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as well as theproceedings initiated against petitioners 2 to 5 within the jurisdiction of Policestation Model Town pending in the Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Metropolitanmagistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi.