Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This Criminal Revision arises out of a judgment dated 4.6.2001 in Crl. Appeal No. 130 of 2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur affirming the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam in complaint case No. 17 of 1998 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Resultantly, the accused-petitioner has been sentenced to RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for two months on both the counts individually. However, during pendency of this revision, the complainant-wife has filed an affidavit with Cr.M. No. 24312 of 2003 stating therein that the parties have settled the disputes and now they are living peacefully together. The relevant portion of the affidavit, on reproduction, reads as under : "3. That after 15.12.2001, deponent is residing with the petitioner along with her daughter. The deponent is residing with the petitioner happily and both of us are performing our social obligations as husband and wife. A good sense has prevailed on us. No dispute is left between the parties and now both of us want to lead a normal married life. Even a male child has born after out reunion". On due consideration, Crl. M. No. 24312 of 2003 is allowed in terms of prayer made therein." 2. The parties were also present in person on the last date of hearing i.e. 13.5.2005 and reiterated the above statement on affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-wife, who has sought quashment of conviction and sentence of her husband also referred to judgments of the High Courts so also of Honble the Apex Court in support of his contention that it would be in the interest of justice that, once the parties have arrived at a settlement and have started living peacefully, conviction and sentence in a matrimonial matter should be quashed. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 275 (Sampati v. State of Rajasthan), wherein offence under Section 406 IPC being compoundable in nature was permitted to be compounded since the parties had compromised the matter and settled the disputes. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 275 (Sampati v. State of Rajasthan), wherein offence under Section 406 IPC being compoundable in nature was permitted to be compounded since the parties had compromised the matter and settled the disputes. Learned counsel further referred to the judgments of this Court in respect of offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC and argued that even in cases of non-compoundable offences, this Court, in the interest of justice, has permitted the parties to compound the offences and consequently quashed the proceedings. That apart, Honble the Apex Court has rendered a leading judgment on this point reported in 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 888 (SC) (B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, holding that the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC if the parties have settled the dispute. Para 14 of the judgment being relevant for this case, on reproduction, reads as under :- "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 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 and 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 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". 3. Under these circumstances, on due consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsel so also the records of the case including the affidavit filed with Crl. M. No. 24312/2003 and the statement of the wife made on earlier date before this Court, the conviction and sentence passed by concurrent findings against the petitioner-landlord are hereby set aside and quashed and the Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.