JUDGMENT Rajesh Tandon, J. — Heard Sri Lokpal Singh Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the respondents. 2. By the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 217 of 2006, 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 3. The marriage of Rizwana daughter of respondent No. 2 Mohd. Mustafa was solemnized with applicant No. 1, Abu Safiyan on 22.7.2003. According to the allegations made in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the applicants treated Smt. Rizwana with cruelty and demanded dowry. 4. It appears that during the pendency of the case reconciliation has taken place. Parties have filed the compromise on 17th February, 2006. 5. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, has observed that although section 498-A was introduced to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. A hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. The Apex Court has observed that in exercise of the powers under section 482 proceedings can be quashed. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below : “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 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 or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 the Indian Penal Code. 15. 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.” 6. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. 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.” 6. In view of the above proceedings of Criminal Case No. 217 of 2006 and summoning order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar is quashed. 7. Accordingly, application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Application Allowed