Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Application is allowed. Reply by respondent No. 2 is taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. 35183-M of 2004 Raj Kumar Tully, his wife Neelam, his son Rohit Tully and daughter Renu Bala and one Jagdish Kumar, petitioners herein, are seeking quashing of FIR No. 46 dated 21.3.2004, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 313, IPC, registered at police station Division No. 6, Ludhiana. 2. Pursuant to notice, respondents have put in appearance. State of Punjab has not filed any reply. However, respondent No. 2 has filed short reply by way of affidavit. She is otherwise present in the Court and has been identified by her Counsel Mr. V.S. Raria, Advocate. I need not enter into detailed discussion as the matter now stands amicably settled between the parties in which both the sides have buried all their disputes and respondent No. 2 has gladly joined the company of petitioner No. 3. She makes an oral statement before me that she is presently staying with petitioner No. 3 and is quite happy. She then states that she has no objection if the present FIR is pushed against the present petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for both the sides have relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 888 (SC). They have also relied upon another latest judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Sobha Mehra and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 136 (P&H), in B.S. Joshis case 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." 4. 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." 4. It is worth mentioning here that the petitioners are also booked for offence punishable under Sections 313 and 506 along with Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC. However, for the purpose of quashing of the present FIR, the view taken by this Court in Smt. Sobha Mehra and Another (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioners. 5. As a sequel to my aforesaid discussion 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 have now amicably decided the matter. The complainant who is staying with her husband at present cannot secure conviction of the petitioner. So, in order to avoid unnecessary harassment to the parties, I am of the view that present FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. FIR, Annexure P-l qua the present petitioner is hereby quashed.