JUDGMENT Honble K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Counsel for the revisionist, S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite party and the learned A.G.A. 2. Leanred Counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 agreed to this fact that parties have entered into compromise. The present revision has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 31.1.2003 and also for quashing the order dated 25.3.2003 rejecting the objection against the same. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the revision is that opposite party Smt. Meena was married to Pramod Kumar and on account of demand of dowry and harassment a complaint was filed by Smt. Meena against the revisionist Nos. 1 to 5 in which the summoning order was passed. The objection against the said summoning order was dismissed. Now the parties have entered into compromise and wants to live in peaceful manner hence it has been prayed that the summoning order and the complaint should be quashed. 4. Reliance has been placed on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 (46) ACC 779 and 2004 (8) Supreme 525 , Ruchi Agrawal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal. In the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows : “In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 5. Thus though the offence under Section 498-A is not compoundable still the created by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not come in the way. The learned Counsel for the parties has settled the dispute. Nobody is going to proceed further for the prosecution. It was therefore held in 1988 (25) ACC 163 (SC) : “While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It was therefore held in 1988 (25) ACC 163 (SC) : “While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evidence. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.” 6. Thus in view of the above the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 31.1.2003 by which the revisionists were summoned is hereby set aside and further proceedings of Crl. Case No. 4097 of 2002, Smt. Meena v. Pramod Kumar, under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is hereby quashed. Revision Allowed. ———