JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding initiated by opposite party No. 2 informant in Jagat¬singhpur P.S.Case No. 125 of 2002 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 351 of 2002 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/419/34, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2, Sanghamitra Swain, a resident of village Bartira of Dist. Jagatsinghpur had been married to petitioner No. 5 on 13.5.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. The said petitioner No. 5 is presently living at New Delhi. The further allegation is that the parents of the informant were given wrong information that peti¬tioner No. 5 is working as Asst. Director, Finance Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Further it is alleged that as per the demand of the petitioner No. 5, besides other articles and ornaments a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash was given by her father at the time of her marriage. After the marriage, petitioner No. 5 took the informant-opposite party No. 2 to his residence at Delhi. During their stay at Delhi, petitioner No. 5 alongwith the parents compelled the opposite party No. 2 to ask her father to present a car in shape of dowry. When the opposite party No. 2 refused the same, it is alleged that petitioner No. 5 took a written statement from opposite party No. 2 that she had illicit relationship with one of her class-mates. It is also alleged that taking advantage of the written statement, petitioner No. 5 filed a divorce petition in the District Judge Court at Delhi for annulling the marriage. Opposite party No. 2 came from Delhi on 6.9.1999 to her village Redhua and thereafter she lodged an FIR in Kishornagar P.S. vide P.S.Case No. 77/1999 under Sections 498-A/209/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of the said FIR, G.R.Case No. 986 of 1999 was initi¬ated and all the petitioners except petitioner No. 5 were appre¬hended and remanded to jail custody. Of course, after remaining for about 15 days in jail custody they were released on bail. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 5 in order to avoid arrest approached the father of the opp. Of course, after remaining for about 15 days in jail custody they were released on bail. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 5 in order to avoid arrest approached the father of the opp. party No. 2 and compromised the matter. Consequentially, all the Criminal Cases were withdrawn. Again opposite party No. 2 went to her in-laws house at Delhi. On reaching there, petitioner No. 5 refused to sleep with her and with compulsion a decree of divorce was passed in the month of March, 2003. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2003 the in-laws terminated her pregnancy after the decree of divorce was passed. Thereafter, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioners. 3. After concluding the investigation the Police submitted charge sheet before the Court below on 9.9.2003. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.9.2003 took cognizance thereof. In the meantime the parties settled their dispute amicably and both the parties i.e. the petitioner No. 5 and opposite party No. 2 moved a petition for compromise before the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi in the month of November 2004 in Review Petition No. M-4/200 arising only H.M.A. No. 153 of 2002. In the said compromise deed, it was stated that both the parties shall withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed against each other and the husband petitioner No. 5 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi and the said amount shall be withdrawn by the wife only after withdrawal of all cases and the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2003 passed in HMA Petition No. 153 of 2002 by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi will be binding on the parties as full and final settlement. Both the parties shall not interfere with the personal life of each other and shall not defame each other in future. Thus the review petition filed against the decree of divorce on the basis of the compromise decree was allowed to be withdrawn by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 10.1.2004. Opposite party No. 2 thus can withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- only after the termination of all the proceedings including all the criminal proceedings. 4. Thus the review petition filed against the decree of divorce on the basis of the compromise decree was allowed to be withdrawn by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi vide his order dated 10.1.2004. Opposite party No. 2 thus can withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- only after the termination of all the proceedings including all the criminal proceedings. 4. Opposite party No. 2 Sanghamitra Swain filed an affida¬vit before this Court through her counsel, to the effect that she and her husband have amicably settled their dispute and mentioned about the finalisation of the compromise petition in the review petition by which the review petition was withdrawn. 5. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2 that the compromise was effected by the parties with an intention to lead peaceful life separately. The parties have also filed their affidavit separately regarding amicable settle¬ment between them. Now both the petitioner No. 5 and opposite party No. 2, the husband and wife respectively are living separately and happily and there remains no dispute between them. Before this Court both of them have prayed for quashing of criminal proceeding pending against petitioner No. 5 and other accused persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi Vr. State of Haryana,* AIR 2003 SC 1386 , wherein the apex Court has observed thus : “The special features in such matrimonial matters are evi¬dent. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” The observations made by this Court though in a slightly different context, in G.V.Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others (2000) 3 SCC 693 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. But the 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 counselled and brought about re-approachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But the 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 counselled and brought about re-approachment 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 encourag¬ing 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 here it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different Courts. 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 demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 proceeding to meet the ends of justice is not the object for which this provision was added. There is to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not 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 Indian Penal Code.” 7. That is not 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 Indian Penal Code.” 7. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ra¬vindra Krishna and others v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others 1997 Cri L.J. 9 relying upon the decision of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Y.Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. J.T. 1998 (2) SC 361 has observed as follows : “In the present case all the matrimonial disputes including those contained in the First Information Report in question have been amicably settled between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Once the parties have settled their disputes and differences, it would be an exercise in futility to file the challan in the Court and to proceed with the trial. Further, it has been observed by the High Court that looking into the totali¬ty of the facts and circumstances the case and larger interest of justice it is just and proper, if the parties are not dragged to the Court to face the trial in a criminal charge, which has lost its objective.” 8. When in the instant case the wife and husband settled their dispute amicably and they have prayed to quash the criminal proceeding against the husband and his relatives who are shown as co-accused, I see no reason to reject the said prayer, more so, when this Court feels that in the interest of the future of the parties, as they have settled their disputes by mutual divorce, they should not be dragged to the Court to face the trial. 9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding i.e. G.R.Case No. 351 of 2002 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur against petitioner No. 5 and other co-accused persons of the offences under Sections 498-A/419/34, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of.