Judgment :- Basha, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this Petition to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Respondent. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) takes notice for the respondent. 3. These petitioners have been arrayed as A.1 to A.4 and they have been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as on date the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. It is also submitted by the learning counsel that the de facto complainant, i.e. the second respondent herein, has also filed an Affidavit dated 27.04.2007 before this Court, to that effect. Learned counsel for the second respondent would also submit that the matter has been amicably settled. It is also further submitted by the counsel that a Petition for mutual consent divorce had also been filed and that the same had been decreed vide the order dated 25.04.2007 passed by Sub-Court, Pudukottai, in H.M.O.P. No.138 of 2007. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the second respondent that the de facto complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter further in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record including the affidavit filed by the petitioners as well as the second respondent/ defacto complainant to day. A memo of compromise was filed before this Court. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the second respondent that the petition is H.M.O.P. No.138 of 2007 filed by the parties to have divorce by mutual consent stands ordered n 25.04.2007. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 has held that, “The decision of Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri.L.J. 165 does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings of F.I.R. or complaint as vested in S.482 or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depend-ing upon the facts and circumstances of each case whethe r to exercise or not such a power”. 6. In the same decision, the Apex Court has held that in matrimonial matters, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of disputes. It is also observed by the Apex Court in the very same decision that, “ 14. . 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 of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ultimately quashed the First Information Report registered on the basis of the Complaint given by the wife against her husband and his relatives for the alleged offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C., in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. 6. In yet another decision in a similar state of facts and situation in Mohd. Shamin v. Nahid Begum, 2005 AIR SCW 332, the Apex Court has held that the proceedings initiated against the husband for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed in view of the agreement of settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. In both the decisions cited supra, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings in spite of the fact that Section 498-A is not compoundable. 8. The facts of the above said two decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, are squared applicable to the facts of this case and in both the case the accused were facing the charge for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings considering the amicable settlement between the parties. 9. 8. The facts of the above said two decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, are squared applicable to the facts of this case and in both the case the accused were facing the charge for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings considering the amicable settlement between the parties. 9. In view of the sequence of events and in view of the Affidavits filed by the Petitioners as well as the de facto com-plainant, and Compromise Memo dated 23.04.2007 signed by all the parties, which forms part and parcel of this Order and as per the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions cited supra, the F.I.R. In Crime No.08 of 2006 pending on the file of the respondent is hereby quashed. Conse-quently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The Criminal Original Petition is stands ordered accordingly.