JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Maanjitender Singh Sethi, his father Tirlochan Singh Sethi and mother Smt. Surjan Kaur, the petitioners herein, are booked in a case baring F.I.R. No. 837 dated November 16, 1993 under Sections 498-A/406 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad, at the instance of Mandeep Kaur, daughter of Tirlochan Singh Narula-respondent No. 2. 2. Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the very out (outset ?) states that earlier also, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had knocked the doors of this Court, for quashing of the F.I.R. vide Criminal Misc. No. No. 5430-M of 1994 and the same was decided on February 19, 2003 with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial by July 31, 2004. He then contends that trial is in progress. He fairly states that by that time, the parties had not entered into compromise, but now the petitioners are seeking quashing on the basis of compromise arrived at amicably between the parties with the intervention of respectables and nearest relations. The petitioners rely upon deed of settlement/compromise Annexure P-1 dated July 13, 2004, in which it has been stated that both the parties and after burying their all grouses, both the parties have started living together happily. 3. Mandeep Kaur-respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, has otherwise filed her reply by way of affidavit admitting the contents of Annexure P-1. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Ajit Atri. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have also made oral statement before me that they are staying happily and have no grouse against each other. They have further stated that their minor son who is the age of 12 and 1/2 years is also with them. Ld. counsel for both the sides have relied upon judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003(2) RCR(Cr.) 888. They have also relied upon another latest judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Sobha Mehra and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 136. In B.S. Joshis case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as under :- "14. They have also relied upon another latest judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Sobha Mehra and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 136. In B.S. Joshis case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court observed as under :- "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 the 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 demand of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interest of women and against 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." 3. No doubt, the trial is in progress, but I am of the view that continuation of the trial any further would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court as the parties are now living together under one roof. So, in order to avoid any unnecessary harassment to the parties, I am of the considered view that FIR No. 837 dated November 16, 1993 under Sections 498-A/406 Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and all proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.