JUDGMENT Bhanwaroo Khan , J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order 7.1.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No. 5, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the application filed by petitioner and respondent No. 2 for compromise has been rejected as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. being non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.2. Petitioner Prahlad Raigar and respondent No. 2 Smt. Mamta Verma are wife and husband having litigation for commission of offence under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. During the proceedings the parties arrived at a compromise and moved an application for compounding the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. The trial Court by order dated 7.1.2008 permitted the parties to compromise the matter and acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. only but refused to attest the compromise sofar as it relates to offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. as same being non-compoundable.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and learned counsel for respondent No. 2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when both the husband and wife have compromised the matter and have resolved their matrimonial disputes by mutual settlement out of the Court then for securing ends of justice if quashing of the criminal proceedings becomes necessary then Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to exercise of power for quashing of proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 RCC (SC) 400. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material available on record as well as the case law cited at the bar. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 RCC (SC) 400. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material available on record as well as the case law cited at the bar. In the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have specifically held that the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the F.I.R. or the complaint or the criminal proceedings even though the offence may not be compoundable under the Cr.P.C. In the instant case the parties, admittedly, are husband and wife and have compromised the matter by mutual settlement out of the Court in relation to Section 498-A I.P.C. In such circumstances, having regard to the compromise and the relation between the parties it is justified that the proceedings pending between them be quashed on the basis of the compromise.6. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 110 of 2004, State of Rajasthan v. Prahlad , pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Jr. Div.) No. 5, Jaipur District are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. *******