Judgment : 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with this petition for quashing the proceedings initiated against them for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 506 (11) I.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner (A-1) and the fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that while this Court granted anticipatory bail to the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 5032 of 2006 by the order dated 7.2.2006, directed the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant to appear before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras with an object of arriving at an amicable settlement as the dispute is between the husband and wife. The learned counsel for the petitioners further brought to the notice of this Court that thereafter, both of them have appeared before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras and Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court, was appointed as the Sole Mediator to receive the dispute between the parties, namely, the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant, his wife. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after several sittings, ultimately, the problem was resolved and both the parties entered into an amicable settlement and compromise memo was signed by them on 4.11.2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that thereafter, the compromise arrived between the parties brought to the notice of this Court and it was represented before this Court that the de-facto complainant has no objection for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of her complaint for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. This Court recorded the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and also given liberty to the petitioner to move for quashing petition in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 : (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in Mohd. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 : (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in Mohd. Shamin v. Mahid Begum 2005 AIR SCW 332 submitted that the proceedings initiated by the de-facto complainant against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. is liable to be quashed as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the two decisions cited supra, in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2.1.2007, this Court directed both the parties, viz., the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant to be present in the Court. Today, learned counsel for both the parties appeared before this Court with the parties, viz., the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant and the representative of Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court, who is the Sole Mediator, also appeared and the de-facto complainant Mrs. Praveena filed an affidavit stating that they have already compromised as per the terms contained in the compromise memo, dated 4.11.2006. The affidavits filed by the de-facto complainant Mrs. Praveena and the first petitioner read hereunder Affidavit of Praveena I, Praveena D/o. Prabhakar, Indian aged about 26 years and residing at Plot No. 6, II Floor, Bharathan Towers, Lakshmanasami Salai, and sincerely stated as follows : 1. I am the Respondent herein and I am fully acquainted with the facts of the case. 2. I submit that I got married to the 1st petitioner herein on 22.5.2005 at Bhuvaneswari Kalyana Mandapam, Pudukottai, as per Hindu rites and rituals. There wasn‘t any cordial relationship between myself and the 1st petitioner from the very beginning. There was strained relationship and we did not get along. 3. I submit that I have lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein with W. 20, All Women Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai, in Cr. No. 1735 of 2005 under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The above case is pending before the learned in Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 2390 of 2006. 4. I further submit that the petitioners herein filed an anticipatory bail before this Hon‘ble Court in Crl. No. 1735 of 2005 under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The above case is pending before the learned in Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 2390 of 2006. 4. I further submit that the petitioners herein filed an anticipatory bail before this Hon‘ble Court in Crl. O.P. No.5032 of 2006 wherein His Lordship Justice K.N.BASHA after granting the anticipatory bail for the petitioners has directed myself and the 1st petitioner herein to appear before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre to settle the dispute amicably. 5. I submit that the 1st petitioner herein has filed a petition to nullify the marriage in H.M.O.P.No. 82 of 2005 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukotai, which is also pending. 6. I state that as per the order of this Hon‘ble Court the matter was taken on the file as F.No. 85 of 2006 in the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre and Sri Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, has been appointed as the Sole Mediator to solve the dispute amongst us. After several sittings, myself and the 1st petitioner herein have settled the matter and also entered upon a consent memo on 4.11.2006. 7. I further submit that as per the consent memo terms myself and the 1st petitioner herein have agreed to withdraw all the proceedings initiated by both of us and also accepted to file a petition for divorce under Mutual Consent. It is submitted that since the complaint registered is under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. of which 498-A is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. Therefore, we have no other option except to file a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. before this Hon‘ble Court. I submit that I will abide by the terms of the consent memo dated 4.11.2006 which was signed before the Sole Mediator Sri. Arvind P. Datar. In the circumstances it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner filed in Crl. O.P.No.29735 of 2006 on the file of this Hon‘ble Court and pass such further or other orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the Court and thus render justice”. Affidavit of Jaiganesh “I, K. Jaiganesh, Son of Kumar, Indian, aged about 31 years and residing at No. 54/55, East Jones Road,Saidapet, Chennai -600 015 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows : 1. Affidavit of Jaiganesh “I, K. Jaiganesh, Son of Kumar, Indian, aged about 31 years and residing at No. 54/55, East Jones Road,Saidapet, Chennai -600 015 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows : 1. I am the first petitioner herein and I am fully acquainted with he facts of the case. 2. I submit that I got married to the Respondent herein on 22.5.2005 at Bhuvaneswari Kalyana Mandapam, Pudukottai as per Hindu rites and rituals. There wasn‘t any cordial relationship between myself and the respondent from the very beginning. There was strained relationship and we did not get along. 3. I submit that the respondent herein has lodged a complaint against myself, my parents and my sister the other petitioners herein with the W-20 All Women Police Station, Saidapet Chennai in Cr. No. 1735 of 2005 under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The above case is pending before the learned M.M. Court, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 2390 of 2006. 4. I further submit that I filed an anticipatory bail petition before this Hon‘ble Court in Crl.O.P.No.5032 of 2006 wherein His Lordship Justice K.N. BASHA after granting anticipatory bail has directed myself and the respondent to appear before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre to settle the dispute amicably. 5. I submit that I have also filed a petition to nullify the marriage in H.M.O.P.No. 82 of 2005 before the leaned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, which is also pending. 6. I state that as per the order of this Hon‘ble Court, the matter was taken on the file as F.No. 85 of 2006 in the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre and Sri Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, has been appointed as the Sole Mediator to solve the dispute amongst us. After several sittings, myself and the respondent herein have settled the matter and also entered upon a consent memo on 4.11.2006. 7. I further submit that as per the consent memo terms myself and the respondent have agreed to withdraw all the proceedings initiated by both of us and also accepted to file a petition for divorce under Mutual Consent. It is submitted that since the complaint registered is under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. of which 498-A is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. It is submitted that since the complaint registered is under Section 498-A and 506 (ii) I.P.C. of which 498-A is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code. Therefore, we have no other option except to file a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Hon‘ble Court. I submit that I will abide by the terms of the consent memo dated 4.11.2006 which was signed before the Sole Mediator Sri. Arvind P. Datar. In the circumstances it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner filed in Crl.O.P.No.29735 of 2006 on the file of this Hon‘ble Court and pass such further or other orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the Court and thus render justice”. 6. I have also perused the compromise memo. The compromise memo is signed by the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant -Praveena and also signed by the Sole Mediator Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court. The terms of the compromise memo entered into between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant dated 4.11.2006 is incorporated hereunder. Consent Terms The above petitioner was referred to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre by Hon‘ble Mr. Justice K.N. BASHA. The Mediation Centre appointed Shri Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, as the sole mediator. Several sittings with the parties were held from March, 2006 ending on 25.10.2006. The parties have resolved their disputes and have agreed to the following consent terms. “ 1. All allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner in the complaint (Case No. 2390 of 2006) filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, shall stand withdrawn. 2. All allegations made by petitioner against the respondent in the above mentioned Crl.O.P. No. 5032 of 2006 shall stand withdrawn. 3. Thepetitioner will withdraw the petition for divorce filed before the Sub-Court, Pudukottai, taken on file as H.M.O.P.No. 82 of 2005 after C.C. No. 2390 of 2006 is quashed in Crl.O.P.No.85 of 2006 by this Hon‘ble Court. The petition at Pudukottai will be withdrawn within one month after C.C.No. 2390 of 2006 is quashed. 4. The petitioner and the respondent have agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court, Chennai. As the marriage has irretrievably broken down their is no prospect of any reconciliation. 5. The petition at Pudukottai will be withdrawn within one month after C.C.No. 2390 of 2006 is quashed. 4. The petitioner and the respondent have agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court, Chennai. As the marriage has irretrievably broken down their is no prospect of any reconciliation. 5. The petitioner shall file a petition to quash the complaint now pending as C.C.No. 2390 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Sadiapet, Chennai. This quash petition shall be filed before the Madras High Court by the petitioner on or before 11.11.2006. 6. The petitioner has agreed to return the following items of jewellery to the respondent:- (i) Gold ring (ii) Diamond ring (iii) Gold bracelet (iv) Silver tumbler/vilakku In addition to the above, necklace and ring belonging to the respondent are not in the possession of the petitioner. This will also be returned. 7. The respondent shall return to the petitioner the gold necklace given at the time of engagement. 8. The items of jewellery mentioned above will be returned by the petitioner to the respondent and respondent to the petitioner on 4.11.2006. the date of signing these consent terms. 9. The petition for divorce by mutual consent shall be fixed before the Family Court at Chennai within one week from the date of withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No. 82 of 2005 now pending before the learned Sub-Judge, Pudukottai. 10. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs byway of Demand Draft on the date of signing of this consent terms namely 4.11.2006. The Demand Draft will be kept in a sealed cover at the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Xerox copy of the Demand Draft shall be retained by petitioner and respondent. The Demand Draft of Rs. 3 lakhs will be handed over to the respondent on the date of signing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court at Chennai. 11. The petitioner and respondent agree to engage Thiru. S.S. Mamallan, Advocate for filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. 12. With the implementation of the consent terms, neither the petitioner nor the respondent will have any claim against each other and all disputes between the parties stand resolved. 13. 11. The petitioner and respondent agree to engage Thiru. S.S. Mamallan, Advocate for filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. 12. With the implementation of the consent terms, neither the petitioner nor the respondent will have any claim against each other and all disputes between the parties stand resolved. 13. The petitioner and respondent agree to co-operate with each other and with the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre to ensure that all the above terms and conditions are implemented in letter and spirit. 14. The petitioner and respondent have signed these consent terms at the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104, in the presence of he Sole Mediator, Shri. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, High Court, Chennai - 600 104. 15. It is prayed that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to take the consent terms on file, record the same and pass suitable orders as may be deem fit”. 7. It is specifically mentioned in Clause 5 of the above said Compromise memo terms that the first petitioner shall file a petition to quash the complaint now pending as C.C.No.2390 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. It is also specifically mentioned under Clause 10 that the first petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft on the date of signing of this consent terms viz., on 4.11.2006. The de-facto complainant appeared before this Court today and stated that the condition was compiled by the first petitioner by depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- 8. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (supra) had held that: “The decision of Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri LJ 165 does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or F.I.R. Or complaint as vested in Section 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 depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power”. 9. 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 depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power”. 9. 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 XXA 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. 10. In yet another decision in a similar state of facts and situation in Mohd. Shamim v. Mahid Begum reported in ( supra) the Apex Court has held that the proceedings initiated against the husband for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed in view of the agreement of settlement arrived at between the parties. 11. In both the decisions (supra), the Apex Curt quashed the proceedings in spite of the fact that Section 498-A is not compoundable. 12. The facts of the above said two decisions of the Apex Court ( supra) are squarely 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 quashed the proceedings considering the amicable settlement between the parties. 13. In view of the sequence of events and in view of the affidavits filed by the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant, Praveena and compromise memo dated 4.11.2006 signed by both the parties and the sole Mediator Mr. 13. In view of the sequence of events and in view of the affidavits filed by the first petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant, Praveena and compromise memo dated 4.11.2006 signed by both the parties and the sole Mediator Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court, 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 Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.2390 of 2006 pending on the file of the leaned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14. Before parting with this matter, this Court expressed its pleasure and place on record the commendable service rendered by Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Madras High Court, who is the Sole Mediator and who has taken effective steps to arrive at an amicable settlement between the parties more particularly in a matrimonial matter like this.