JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — In this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners-Namita Nayak (informant) and her husband Radhamohan Nayak jointly make a prayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No.51 of 1998 arising out of K.S. Nagar P.S. Case No.31 of 1998 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kodala. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1, i,e., Namita Nayak married petitioner No.2, i.e., Radhamo¬han Nayak on 26.2.1996, whereafter, the married couple lived together in their matrimonial house along with their in-laws. On 27.3.1998, the petitioner No.1 lodged an F.I.R. at the K.S. Nagar Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Consequently, K.S. Nagar P.S. Case No.31 of 1998 was registered, which corresponds to G.R. Case No.51 of 1998 in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Kodala. 3. In this application, the petitioners jointly state that on the intervention of the near and dear ones of both the par¬ties, as well as the local gentries, the petitioners have decided to stay together in their matrimonial house and to continue to lead a normal conjugal life. It is stated that the relatives of the petitioners have also realized the position and hence a set¬tlement has been reached in order to enable both the petitioners to live together and lead a happy conjugal life. As a consequence thereof, both the petitioners and other accused persons submitted a joint petition on 16.12.2006 before the learned trial Court for closing/dropping the case in terms of the settlement reached between the parties. But, the learned J.M.F.C., rejected such application on the ground that the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. is non-compoundable offence. Hence, the petitioners while finding no fault with the order of the J.M.F.C., in rejecting their application, have sought for intervention of this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the cognizance taken against them and the pro¬ceeding, in order to meet the ends of justice. 4. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court while taking into consideration the purpose of law must also consider as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be in the interest of either party, who are now leading a happy conjugal life. 4. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court while taking into consideration the purpose of law must also consider as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be in the interest of either party, who are now leading a happy conjugal life. Learned counsel for the petition¬ers further submitted that, permitting continuance of the crimi¬nal proceeding, in the present circumstances, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and since both the petitioners are living together and have settled their differences, it would be in the larger interest of justice, to pass orders quashing the order of cognizance as well as pending criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case. Pragyandipta Panda and others v. State of Orissa and another reported in (2005) 31 OCR - 45 and in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sahoo and others v. State of Orissa and another reported in (2005) 31 OCR-135. 5. On a reading of the Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as, Judgments relied upon in the aforesaid case, it is the settled position of law that once the parties have settled their matrimonial disputes, it would be an exercise in futility to file the challan in the Court and to proceed with the trial. It is also well settled that the High Court in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Sec¬tion 482 Cr.P.C., may in a given case, quash cognizance/proceed¬ings, if on looking to the totality of the facts and circum¬stances of the case and larger interest of justice, it is just and proper not to drag the parties into Court to face the trial in a criminal charge which has clearly lost its objective. 6. In the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 , the Apex Court has observed : “The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 6. In the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 , the Apex Court has observed : “The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others (2003) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But the matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extend which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial liti¬gation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it take years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different Courts. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to pre¬vent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives for her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest 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 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 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 Indian Penal Code.” 7. The facts narrated in this application as well as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are similar to the facts of the cases cited above. This Court is of the opin¬ion that since both the parties are desiring to get rid of the case and live together in their matrimonial house, in the inter¬est of justice, I am of the view that the parties should not be compelled to face trial and since in the present facts and cir¬cumstances of the case, the criminal charges have lost its objec¬tives, the proceeding in G.R. Case No.51 of 1998 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kodala is hereby quashed. The CRLMC is, thus, allowed. CRLMC allowed.