ORDER 4.05.2005 — Though the matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are all accused in G.R.Case No.593 of 1999 of the Court learned JMFC, Pattamundai. They have filed this application u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 12.9.2002 framing charge against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323/34, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has been an amicable settlement between the petitioners and opp.party No.2 consequent upon which the opp.party No.2 is living happily with her husband-petitioner No.1. He submits that when the par¬ties have amicably sorted out their differences and are living in cordial terms, continuance of the proceedings of G.R. Case No.593 of 1999 will not only be abuse of process of the Court, but will also cause strain in the relationship between the par¬ties. According to him in the aforementioned situation the best course is to quash the impugned order of charge and the further proceedings of G.R. Case No.593 of 1999. To support his conten¬tion, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the cases of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another* (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99; Tankadhar Thakur and others v. State of Orissa and another**, (2003) 26 OCR 331; Tasoraj Mahamad and others v. State of Orissa and another***, (2005) 30 OCR 188. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand submits that the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act are non-compoundable in nature as per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and such offences cannot be compounded by exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (supra), the wife filed a complaint case against the husband for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406, IPC. Later on the parties settled their dispute and prayed for quash¬ing of the cognizance taken in the case. Later on the parties settled their dispute and prayed for quash¬ing of the cognizance taken in the case. The High Court refused to exercise the inherent power to quash the proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. due to the bar provided under Section 320, Cr.P.C. The apex Court while disagreeing with the view of the High Court held that when quashing of a proceeding is necessary for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, Section 320, Cr.P.C. cannot stand as a bar. It was also indicated that where chance of conviction is bleak, the Court can proceed to quash the proceeding taking into consideration the special facts and circumstances of the case. This view of the Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in the cases of Narayan Rout and others v. State of Orissa and another* (2003) 25 OCR-244; Tankad¬har Thakur and others v. State of Orissa and another (supra) and Tasoraj Mahamad and others v. State of Orissa and another (supra) and also in several other cases. So the legal position is now clear. Even if some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature a criminal proceedings involving such offences can be quashed if such quashing is necessary for securing ends of jus¬tice. In the present case the petitioners are the husband and in-laws of opp.party No.2. Now the parties have sorted out their differences and are living peacefully. The wife - opp.party No.2 has filed an affidavit in this regard indicating therein that she is now living in cordial term with the petitioners and has been blessed with a child in the meantime. She has also prayed to quash the proceedings on the plea that continuance of criminal proceedings may again cause tension in her relationship with the petitioners. Since quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case No.593 of 1999 of the Court of learned JMFC, Pattamundai will bring peace, amity and happiness in the family of opp.party No.2 and the petitioners and since after the compromise between the parties chance of conviction of the petitioners is bleak, it will be just and proper to quash the proceedings of the above noted G.R. Case. The impugned order of charge and proceedings in G.R. Case No.593 of 1999 of the Court of learned JMFC, Pattamundai is accordingly quashed. With the aforesaid observations the CRLMC stands disposed of. UCC be granted on proper application. CRLMC disposed of.