JUDGMENT At the request of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard finally. This petition is under section 482 CrPC. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are husband and wife. A police case was registered against applicant No.1 Bhim Bahadur on the report of applicant No.2 Smt. Anita Soni, under section 498-A and 506 IPC. Good senses prevailed in the minds of the parties and as such they entered into a compromise. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that application under section 320 (2) CrPC was filed in the trial Court but the same was rejected and the trial Court convicted applicant No.1 Bhim Bahadur. An appeal was preferred by him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and in that Court also an application was submitted under section 302 (2) CrPC, however, the same was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that offence under section 498-A IPC is not compoundable. Hence this petition under section 482 CrPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that parties have entered into compromise and certified copy of the application which was filed before the Appellate Court has been filed in this Court as Annexure A-I. Learned counsel further submits that since the offence under section 498-A IPC is not compoundable and therefore in order to streamline the relations between the husband and wife if they are agreed to compromise, the apex Court has shown sufficient light on this point. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (I) MPWN 145 = (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein the apex Court in para 13, 14 and 15 has held as under: "13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H. V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the Courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their young' day in chasing their 'cases' in different Courts. 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 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 demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive 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 from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code." If the ratio decidendi of the B.S. Joshi (supra) is tested on the anvil of the present factual scenario, one can easily say that the fate of this case could also be decided in the light of the aforesaid decision. Since present petition has been filed by husband and wife and learned counsel has also invited my attention to the application filed under section 320 (2) CrPC before the appellate Court, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this petition is hereby allowed and the prosecution of the applicant Bhim Bahadur as well as his conviction is hereby set-aside.