Judgment :- The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The second respondent herein is the accused in that case and he is facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The trial of the case is in progress. At that stage, a petition to compound the offences has been filed before the trial court, which has been dismissed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, by order, dated 12. 2008. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 on the ground that immediately after she was examined as P.W.1, the differences between the petitioner and the second respondent were sorted out due to the intervention of the elders and well wishers and that she did not support the prosecution case. 4. The petitioner has also filed a sworn affidavit stating that the said case is a stumbling block for the disposal of the divorce petition filed by way of mutual consent in the family court at Bangalore. 5. Heard both. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the value of the property alleged to have been misappropriated is above Rs.250/-, compounding was not allowed in view of the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pendency of the criminal case stands in the way of settling the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, unless the proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 are quashed, great hardship and injustice will be caused not only to the petitioner but also to the second respondent. 9. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, unless the proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 are quashed, great hardship and injustice will be caused not only to the petitioner but also to the second respondent. 9. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 582 (MADAN MOHAN ABBOT V. STATE OF PUNJAB) and submitted that even if the value of the property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed is above Rs.250/-, this Court by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings in the interest of justice. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent adopts the sworn statement filed by the petitioner and supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also submitted that if the proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 are not quashed, great hardship will be caused to the second respondent. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. As stated above, a sworn statement has been filed by the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, stating that the outstanding disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent have been amicably settled and a petition for divorce by mutual consent has also been filed in a court at Bangalore. 13. In the decision reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 (B.S. JOSHI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER), in paragraphs 12 to 15, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V.Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial disputes 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. 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 little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt 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 rapproachment 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 litigation 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 takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. 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 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 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." 14. Further, in the decision reported in (2008) 4 SUPRME COURT CASES 582, the Apex Court has laid down as under:- "5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Further, in the decision reported in (2008) 4 SUPRME COURT CASES 582, the Apex Court has laid down as under:- "5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11. 2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. 6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in the criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. 7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No.155, dated 111. 2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed." 15. The outer limit of Rs.250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No.155, dated 111. 2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed." 15. In the light of the law laid down in the above referred cases, the facts of the case on hand are considered, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 as the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent is purely a personal one and no public policy is involved in the nature of the allegations made against the second respondent. 16. Further, the defacto complainant, who has examined herself as P.W.1, in her cross examination, has stated as follows:- "We have also settled the matter among out self divorce petition also pending before Bangalore Family Court in H.M.O.P.No.861 of 2007. So I dont want to continue this case further. I got back jewellery from the accused. So I am not pressing the complaint. I have no objection in acquitting the accused in this case." 17. In the light of the above said evidence of P.W.1, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending. Further, when the parties themselves settled their disputes amicably, the Court should encourage such kind of settlement arrived at between the contesting parties, especially in matrimonial matters. 18. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions and in the light of the sworn affidavit filed by the defacto complainant and in the light of the facts narrated above, all further proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 are quashed. The above Criminal Original Petition is allowed quashing all proceedings in C.C.No.5181 of 2004 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.