JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. seeks quashing of the proceedings pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum - Judicial Magistrate No. 16, 1st Class, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 4/2001 whereby the application filed by the parties to compound the case for offences u/Ss. 498-A and 406 I.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Deepak Jangid was married to Smt. Neeta Jangid, non-petitioner No. 2 on 17.4.2000 at Jaipur. As their marital relations got strained after sometime of the marriage, an F.I.R. Was lodged by the wife of P.S. Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur whereupon F.I.R. No. 140/2000 was lodged for offences u/Ss. 498 - A and 406 I.P.C. 3. It appears that the husband filed a petition u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wife Smt. Neeta Jangid before the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar. The wife also filed a petition for maintenance before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur wherein ex-parte order for grant of maintenance to her was passed. It appears that thereafter the parties entered into a settlement according to which ornaments and other articles were given to her and a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as one time alimony was given to her. It further appears that a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce by mutual consent was also filed before the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was allowed and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed on 26.5.2004 dissolving their marriage held on 17.4.2000. Certified copies of the relevant documents and the compromise have been filed which be taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the parties have own come to a compromise. They have, therefore, prayed that proceedings pending between the parties in the court below may be quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana and another (2003) RCC (SC) 400 wherein it has been clearly held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings/F.I.R./complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not affect or limit the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. v. State of Haryana and another (2003) RCC (SC) 400 wherein it has been clearly held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings/F.I.R./complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not affect or limit the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned authority, the criminal proceedings pending between the parties in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 16, 1st Class, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 4/2001 for offences u/Ss. 498-A and 406 I.P.C. deserve to be quashed for securing the ends of justice. 6. In the result, this criminal misc. petition u/s. 482 Cr.PC. is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending between the parties in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum - Judicial Magistrate No. 16, 1st Class, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 4/2001 for offences u/Ss. 498-A and 406 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******