JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioners as well as complainants in Criminal Case No. 204/2000 State of Rajasthan v. Anil Puri & Ors. pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, have filed this joint petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. to quash all the proceedings of the above referred criminal case on the basis of compromise in between both the parties. 2. The accused petitioners No. 1 to 4 are facing trial in the trial court for the offence under Section 406 & 498-A IPC. During the pendency of the trial, both the parties settled the dispute in between them and filed a joint application to attest the compromise. A certified copy of the compromise dated 6.8.2005 filed before the trial court has been placed on record with this petition. The trial court passed an order on 6.8.2005 that the accused petitioners as well as complainants both are present in the court and they admitted the contents of the compromise and they put their signature before the court itself on the compromise. Both the parties were identified by their respective advocates. However, the trial court refused to attest the compromise on the ground that offences are non-compoundable, therefore, the trial court rejected the application filed by the accused petitioners as well as complainants. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as complainants both submit that the criminal case arises out of the matrimonial dispute and now with the help of well wishers and relatives, a compromise has taken place in between both the parties and both the parties signed the compromise and the same was placed on record before the trial court. The trial court took on record a copy of the application and compromise. They further submit that from the order-sheet of the trial court dated 6.8.2005, it appears that both the parties admitted the contents of the compromise to be correct and put there signatures on the same. They further submits that in the interest of justice proceedings pending before the trial court be quashed. 4. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 RCC (SC) 400), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for securing ends of justice, if quashing becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing proceedings. They further submits that in the interest of justice proceedings pending before the trial court be quashed. 4. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 RCC (SC) 400), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for securing ends of justice, if quashing becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or effect power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court as referred above. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the compromise placed on record duly signed by both the parties and also the order-sheet of the trial court dated 6.8.2005,1 allow this petition and I direct the trial court to attest the compromise in between both the parties in respect of offence under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 9th Sept., 2005. In case, the parties appear and compromise is attested, then the trial court will pass the necessary order of discharge of the accused persons. 7. This petition under section 482 stands disposed of as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******