Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. The matrimonial dispute between the parties which resulted into criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC against petitioner No.1 and his son Govind Sahay pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bandikui, District Dausa has been settled aimcably and the parties have entered into compromise. Thereafter, husband and wife submitted an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate and prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against the accused, namely, husband and father-in-law be dropped. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground of bar created by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. Thereafter, the husband and wife jointly filed Cr. Misc. Petition No.891/2004 with the prayer that proceedings against the husband be ordered to the dropped. This Court vide order dated 16.09.2004 allowed the aforesaid misc. petition and ordered that proceedings pending against Govind Sahay (husband) are dropped and directed the trial Court to pass necessary consequential orders. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that because of inadvertance, the name of the present petitioner No.1 (father-in-law of petitioner No.2) escaped from being added in the arrary of the petitioners in the aforementioned misc. petition and that being the reason the petitioner No.1 (father-in-law) and petitioner No.2 (complainant) have jointly filed the present petition seeking same directions in respect of petitioner No.1 as have been issued in respect of husband in above said misc. petition. 3. 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 Supreme Court in V.S. Joshi & Ors. 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 counterproductive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. 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 counterproductive 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”. 4. Having gone through the contents of the petition, the submissions made above and taking into consideration the fact that this Court, keeping in view the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute, vide order dated 16.09.2004 has ordered the proceedings to be dropped as against the husband of the complainant, I am of the considered opinion that proceedings against petitioner No.1 (father-in-law of non-petitioner No.2) also deserve to be quashed. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, I allow this petition and quash the proceedings against Kalyan Sahay, petitioner No.1 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Bandikui, District Dausa in criminal case No.171/2000.