Judgment K.K. Acharya, J.-By this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioners have prayed for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them in the Court of judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar, District Churu in Criminal Case No. 365/2003 for offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has resulted into criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 498-Aand 406, IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar, District Churu. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners have returned all the Stridhan to the respondent wife and she does not want anything against the petitioners. Thereafter, both the parties have come to the comprise by counseling and they have no grievance against each other. He further states that complainant herself has submitted the compromise before the lower Court but the lower Court has refused to attest the compromise as the offence are not compoundable. He states that the learned trial Court despite the fact that parties have entered into written compromise, has proceeded ahead in the criminal case pending against the petitioners. 4. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 (4) SCC 675 . 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has also submitted before me that the parties have come to the compromise and they are living separately. 6. I have considered the arguments made by learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as the documents produced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. (Supra), wherein their Lordship while considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, have observed as under:- “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. (Supra), wherein their Lordship while considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, have observed as under:- “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 to her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interest 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.” 7. Taking into consideration the statement made by the learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent, I am satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled their matrimonial dispute and now they have no grievance against each other. In this view of the matter and taking into account the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Joshi & Ors., (Supra), I find it to be a fit case where inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC should be exercised. 8. For the reasons as stated hereinabove, I allow this misc. petition and quash the proceedings against the accused petitioners pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar, District Churu in Criminal Case No. 365/2003 for offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC.