JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Complaint Petition No. 669 of 2002 filed on 20th May, 2002 pending in the Court of Sri Nasiruddin, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 498A, IPC. 2. According to petitioner, his, marriage was solemnized on 12th December, 1996 with O.P. No. 2, Smt Rajeshree Parmar without any dowry. For the reasons best known to O.P. No. 2, she left she petitioners house with her father on 1st October, 2002. The petitioner had to file a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 24 of 2002 for decree of divorce against the O.P. No. 2 in the Court of Family Court, Ranchi in which notices were sent, Subsequently, the O.P. No, 2 filed Complaint Petition No. 669 of 2002 against the petitioner only with intention to harass the petitioner for filing divorce petition against her. In para 19 of the complaint petition, she disclosed that it was not a case of demand of dowry but was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2. Therefore, according to petitioner the dispute is of a civil nature. The criminal proceeding is not maintainable and it amount to abuse of process of Court. In the aforesaid background, the present petition under Section. 483, Cr.P.C. was preferred by petitioner to quash the roceeding. 3. An affidavit has been filed by O.P. No. 2, wherein it is stated that during the pendency of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition; due to intervention of common friends and relatives, good Sense having been prevailed upon the parties, the parties hereto have compromised the case outside the Court and no such offence as alleged in the complaint petitions is required to proceed against the petitioner furthermore. The O.P. No. 2, no longer, intends to proceed with the prosecution and shall have no objection if the present criminal proceeding is quashed by the Court. The O.P. No. 2, no longer, intends to proceed with the prosecution and shall have no objection if the present criminal proceeding is quashed by the Court. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, he has accepted that due to intervention of common friends and relatives, good sense having been prevailed upon the parties, the parties hereto have compromised the case outside the Court and the parties have also agreed Jo compromise all other, cases pending between them before any Court of law either civil or criminal and on this regard both the parties have filed joint petition before the Family Court, Ranchi for mutual divorce. 4. Similar case fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in I (2003) DMC 524 (SC)=II. (2003) SLT 689= (2003) 4 SCC 675 . In that case FIR was lodged by w under Sections 498A,, 323 and 406, IPC against her husband and his relatives, . The husband filed a petition under Section 482,, Cr.p.C. for quashing the entire proceeding. In the meantime, the husband, and wife agreed to mutual divorce. the wife appeared before this Court, and supported the prayer for quashing of, the said proceeding, they having agreed to mutual divorce. The High Court refused to quash the entire proceeding on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences . In the said case, the Supreme Court noticed that the husband or the wife had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the powers under Section 482 have no limits. Though it is necessary to exercise such power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with utmpost care and caution but exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court; further held the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or ,by relatives of her husband. The Supreme Court; further held the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 hypertechnical view would be counter-productive 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 for settling earlier. That is Hot the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code." In the said case, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and quashed the FIR. 5. The case of the petitioner being similar to that of the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), both the husband and wife having compromised the matter outside the Court, and to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial dispute, the entire criminal proceeding initiated under Complaint Petition No. 669 of 2002 filed on 20th May, 2002 by O.P. No. 2 pending in the Court of Sri Nasiruddin, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 498A, IPC is set aside. 6. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.