( 1 ) IN this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings in C. C. No. 13944/04 on the file of IV Addl. C. M. M. , bangalore. ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the case are to the effect that the petitioner lodged the complaint with vijayanagar Police against her husband hidayathulla and his family members on the ground that subsequent to the marriage on 9-3-1998, the petitioner was harassed by her husband's family in connection with demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with one house, jewels and other household articles and the petitioner underwent torture both physically and mentally by her husband's family, which finally led the complainant to lodge the complaint which ultimately came to be registered as C. C. No. 13944/2004 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 354 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the IPC and the case is pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court, Bangalore. ( 3 ) THE present petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings mainly on the ground that the petitioner who is the complainant, is now not willing to prosecute the case against her husband and in-laws and intends to withdraw the case against them. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings before the trial Court. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government pleader and perused the material on record. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while submmitting that the petitioner who is the complainant before the trial Court is willing to put an end to the matter, but however, the petitioner's husband is not before this Court and nothing is known as to the reaction of the petitioner's husband in this regard. ( 6 ) FURTHER, my attention was drawn to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2003 (4) SCC 675 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1386 ) in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana to submit that in cases of matrimonial disputes, it is the duty of Court to encourage the genuine settlements of the matrimonial disputes and therefore, the powers under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. can be exercised in such cases. It was then submitted that the said decision of the Apex Court requires to be applied to the case on hand. ( 7 ) LEARNED Government Pleader also submitted that the powers of Section 482 of Cr. P. C. can be exercised under special circumstances, subject to both the parties agreeing. ( 8 ) HAVING thus heard the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the material on record, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner for more than one reasoning that in so far as quashing of the complaint involving offences under Section 498-A and other sections of the Dowry Act i. e. 3 and 4 is concerned, it has to be mentioned that offence under Section 498-A is a non-compoundable offence. The Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Bankat v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 316 : ( AIR 2005 SC 368 ) has laid down the law that only the offences which are covered by table 1 or table 2 under Section 320 of the IPC can be compounded and rest of the offences punishable under IPC cannot be compounded. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to compounding of offences, in the instant case the offence under Section 498-A is non-compoundable one. Hence, the question of the said offence being compounded will not arise. ( 9 ) AS regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case what is sought by the petitioner is not compounding of the offence under section 498-A, but only quashing of the proceedings before the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner does not intend to prosecute the matter against the accused persons is concerned, no doubt, in the decision referred to by the petitioner's counsel, hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is permissible to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. in relation to matrimonial disputes and the duty of the Court is to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, yet in the decision referred to by the petitioner's counsel, the most important factor that led to the compounding of the offences is that the parties have arrived at a settlement and the settlement between the parties that was taken note of while making the observations that the Courts have a duty to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes, whereas in the case on hand, as already submitted by the petitioner's counsel himself, it is only the petitioner who has come before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings, but the respondent-husband is nowhere in the picture nor is there any settlement arrived at between the parties. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader the question of quashing the fir in cases of offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC will not arise unless there is a genuine settlement of the dispute between the parties. In view of the above, the decision referred to by the petitioner's counsel cannot come to his aid as the facts and circumstances in the said case and the one with which we are concerned are entirely different and more importantly, there is no settlement of dispute between the parties in the proceedings. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, quashing of the proceedings pending before the trial court will not arise and as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of bankat v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2003 sc 1386 ), even assuming that there is compromise between the parties that may be a factor to be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. No doubt, in the case on hand, no such compromise is forthcoming. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .