Judgment :- This O.P. has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.207 of 2004 pending before the C-5, Kothawalchavadi Police Station, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant Mrs.Sunitha Gupta, the complainant, lodged a compliaint with the respondent-police on 8.5.2004, based on which, a First Information Report in Crime No.207 of 2004 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 427 and 307, I.P.C. was registered against the mother-in-law of the complainant and the second wife of the complainant's husband. 3. A perusal of the records would show that various proceedings were pending between the parties before the District Court, Family Court and the High Court. Now, the complainant Mrs.Sunitha Gupta and her husband Pramendra Gupta have settled among themselves, all their disputes. They have filed an application for divorce on mutual consent in H.M.O.P.No.2063 of 2004 and divorce was granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Crl.M.P.No.9881 of 2004, the petition filed by the complainant to clarify the order dated 22.4.2004 in Crl.O.P.No.14275 of 2004 so as to give adequate protection to the petitioner to take back her belongings from her matrimonial home was withdrawn by Smt.Sunitha Gupta on the ground that the matter has been settled between herself and her husband. The complainant's husband has married another woman, who is the second accused in the said case. 4. Today, when this Crl.O.P. was taken up, the complainant is present in Court and she says that they have compromised among themselves and the complaint may be quashed. Today, she has also filed a memo, stating that the complaint may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Already, a memo was filed on 13.8.2004. 5. Offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not a compoundable offence. However, under special circumstances, such kind of offence can be compounded, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (B.S.JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYANA (2003) 4 SCC 675 ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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. Section 498-A 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests 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 XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. " As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the matter has been settled between the parties, the pendency of First Information Report, which is sought to be quashed, should not be an impediment for the settlement among the parties. Therefore, the First Information Report in Crime No.207 of 2004 pending before the C-5, Kothawalchavadi Police Station, Chennai is quashed and the petition is ordered.