Judgment SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that the order dated 7/11/2003 passed by the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh by which he refused to attest the compromise filed by the accused petitioners as well as complainant-respondent No. 2 on the ground that some of the offences were not compoundable, be quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings pending against the accused petitioners be quashed and set aside. ( 2 ) IT arises in the following circumstances: A challan was filed against the accused petitioners by the SHO, Police Station Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 498a and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in FIR No. 478/2000 in the Court of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh, where a regular criminal case No. 529/2003 was registered. During the course of the said criminal proceedings, a compromise was filed in the Court of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh on 7-11-2003 by the accused petitioners and the complainant respondent No. 2 stating inter alia that since the matter has been compromised between the accused petitioners and the complainant respondent No. 2, therefore, the cri-minal proceedings against the accused petitioner be dropped and the compro-mise be attested. However, the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgah through impugned order dated 7-11- 2003 refused to attest the com-promise on the ground that some of the offences were not compoundable. Hence, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned coun-sel for the accused petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 and gone through the materials available on record. ( 4 ) THIS Court in Ram Kishore v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. , Ghanshyam Saini v. State of Rajasthan and anr. , Rameshwar @ Pappu and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors. and Ram Swaroop v. State, has taken the view that it is proper to accord permission to compound offence under Section 498a IPC. ( 5 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and anr. has observed that Section 320 Cr. , Rameshwar @ Pappu and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors. and Ram Swaroop v. State, has taken the view that it is proper to accord permission to compound offence under Section 498a IPC. ( 5 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and anr. has observed that Section 320 Cr. P. C. does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings under Section 498a IPC so that matrimonial relationship may remain cordial. ( 6 ) KEEPING in mind the law laid down in the above rulings and keeping in mind that the basic object of any matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between the spouses though under different circumstances they approached the court, the permission sought for the compound the offences under Sections 498a IPC and 4 Dowry prohibition Act pursuant upon the settlement and understanding between the spouses to amicably live together with harmony should be accorded by this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Therefore, in view of the larger interest of the parties and to secure the ends of justice, this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by the accused petitioners is allowed and the impugned order dated 7/11/2003 passed by the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh is quashed and set aside and the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh is directed to accord per-mission to compound the offences under Sections 498a IPC and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act in terms of the compro-mise filed before the Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh on 31/5/2004.