JUDGMENT R. N. Biswal, J.— This CRLMC arises out of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceeding in G.R.Case No. 140 of 2005 pending before the Court of S.D.J.M., Padampur. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner No. 1 married opposite party No. 2 on 6.3.2003 in accordance with Hindu Rites and their caste custom. Sometimes thereafter skirmishes erupted between the petitioner and his family members in one hand and opposite party No. 2 on the other. So, opposite party No. 2 filed I.C.C. Case No. 12 of 2005 before the Court of S.D.J.M., Padampur, against the petitioner, his parents and sister on accusation of commission of offence under Sections 498-A/294/506/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P.Act. The complaint petition having been referred to the O.I.C. of Jharbandha P.S. under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the S.D.J.M., it was treated as F.I.R. and registered as G.R.Case No. 140 of 2005. While investigation into the case was in progress, opposite party No. 2 filed a petition before the S.D.J.M., to drop the proceeding, as she was no more interested in it in view of the compromise entered into between the parties out-side the Court. But instead of allowing the petition, the trial Court tagged the G.R.Case and the complaint case to be tried together. Opposite party No. 2 had also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against petitioner No. 1 before the S.D.J.M., Padampur vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 21 of 2005. On Filing of a joint compromise petition by both the parties the case was dropped. Under such circumstances the present CRLMC has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding of the G.R. Case. 3. As found from the compromise petition filed in the G.R. Case before the Court of S.D.J.M. , Padampur petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 were mutually divorced as per their caste custom and have been living peacefully. Opposite party No. 2 filed the complaint case giving rise to G.R.Case No. 140 of 2005 against the petitioners due to misunderstanding. Since she has been living happily after divorce, she is no more interested to prosecute the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mutual settlement should be encouraged in such a case. Opposite party No. 2 filed the complaint case giving rise to G.R.Case No. 140 of 2005 against the petitioners due to misunderstanding. Since she has been living happily after divorce, she is no more interested to prosecute the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mutual settlement should be encouraged in such a case. It is a fit case where the extraordinary power conferred on this Court should be exercised to quash the proceeding of the G.R.Case No. 140 of 2005. 5. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 having been mutually divorced, are living happily in their own ways. So the Criminal Case should not be allowed to proceed to create hurdle in their peaceful living. Moreover, the offences involved are not serious in nature. Even if the proceeding is allowed to continue ultimately the case would be ended in acquittal. Therefore, under such circumstances, the CRLMC is allowed and the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 140 of 2005 is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. *******