Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is charged with the offence under Section 498-A IPC arising out of matrimonial dispute. The matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted into criminal proceedings has been settled amicably and the parties have entered into compromise. Accordingly, the non-petitioner wife submitted an application before the trial Court seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The trial Court vide its order dated 112.2004 declined to recognize settlement under Section 498-A IPC in view of the bar created by Section 320 CrPC and dismissed her application. 2. It is well settled that while exercising inherent jurisdiction the Court should encourage genuine settlements of the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. While considering the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A, their Lordships of the Suprement (sic) Court in V.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 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 hypertechnical view would be conterproductive 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". 3. Having gone through the contents of the petition and the papers annexed there with and in view of the statement made by Mr. Ravi Chirania, appearing for the non-petitioner, that complainant-non-petitioner has started living with her petitioner husband peacefully and now she has no grievance against her husband, I am satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled their matrimonial dispute and the husband and wife have started living together and, therefore, it is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised. 4. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, I allow this petition and quash the proceedings against the accused petitioner pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, district Bharatpur in Cr. Case No. 150/2002.