Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Dhiraj Kumar is the husband. Smt. Komal respondent No. 2 is the wife. Both got married on 1.2.1998. One girl had born out of this wedlock who is presently residing with respondent No. 2 as stated by both the sides. The marriages went into rough weather within a short span and ultimately respondent No. 2 was constrained to get a case registered against petitioner bearing FIR No. 342 dated 29.12.1999 under Sections 406, 498-A, IPC, Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana. 2. Dhiraj petitioner has now filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing of the FIR on many grounds. I need not enter into detailed discussion as the parties have since compromising the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon affidavit Annexure P/1 of Smt. Komal respondent No. 2 and the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have got their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, Annexure P/2. In the affidavit it has been so stated that the matter has been finally settled between the parties and the respondent has received the amount from her husband towards her maintenance and for maintenance of her minor daughter. 3. It has also been brought to my notice that the charge has already been , framed and only one formal witness has been examined. This would not stand as a hurdle while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 4. While quashing the FIR in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., I (2003) DMC 524 (SC)=II (2003) CCR 57 (SC)=2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888, Their Lordship have observed as under: "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code." 5. Keeping in the view of the facts of the present case and the law laid down in B.S. Joshis case (supra) I am of the view that the continuation of further proceedings in the present FIR would be sheer abuse of the process of Court and as such the present FIR and the further proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed. 6. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 342, dated 29.12.1999, under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC, registered at Police State Division No. 6, Ludhiana and the further proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.