JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Mahendra Singh, petitioner No. 1 and Smt. Jyoti, respondent No. 2 are present in Court. 2. By the instant Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seek quashing of criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 09/2006, State v. Mahendra Singh and others pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur (for short 'the court' hereinafter) for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as also the parties present in person. 4. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent No. Smt. Jyoti married to petitioner No. 1 Mahendra Singh However, during their marital life, there had been some difference and it was alleged that the petitioners harassed and subjected the respondent No. 2 to cruelty and misappropriated her "Stridhan". On the report lodged by respondent No. 2 the police investigated the matter and filed the challan against the petitioners. During trial of the case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and moved before the trial court seeking compounding the offences. The trial court granted permission to compromise the matter for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C., however, declined to accept the compromise for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. on the ground that the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Hence this petition. 5. Before, this Court, a compromise has been filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that she has settled the dispute amicably and the misunderstanding between the parties has been cleared and she has been living with her husband and parties-in-laws peacefully and, therefore, she does not want to prosecute her husband and parents-in-law petitioners herein and seeks quashing of the proceedings. The compromise has been verified by the Registrar Administration. Respondent No. 2 has been identified by her counsel Mr. Nishant MOdsara. Since the parties have resolved their dispute and respondent No. 2 is now living with her husband peacefully at her in-laws house, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings to continue any more. No evidence is likely to come against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 clearly stated that she does not want to prosecute and make any statement against her husband and parents-in-law. 6. No evidence is likely to come against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 clearly stated that she does not want to prosecute and make any statement against her husband and parents-in-law. 6. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing the FIR. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complainant and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the IPC. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, in my view no useful purpose will be served in allowing the proceedings to continue. In the result, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in criminal case No. 09/2006, State v. Mahendra Singh and others pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur is hereby quashed. *******