JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This misc. petition is filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the compromise application filed by the petitioners and respondent No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 86/2005. 3. Today, the petitioners, Rajveer Singh Saran and Bhupat Singh Saran; and Smt. Deep Shikha Saran (complainant/respondent No. 2) are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsels. It is given out by the parties that they have settled their dispute and the complainant does not want to pursue the complaint against the 'petitioners. The complainant has decided to live separately and a divorce decree has also been passed by the competent Court. The complainant and petitioners submitted the compromise before the Court below, however, the trial Court refused to attest the compromise as the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 are rion-compoundable offence. 4. In support of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: 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 the 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 hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and would act against interests 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. 5. 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. 5. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Smt. Kumar Agrawal & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299 ; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it would be an abuse of process of the Court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arise is allowed to continue. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully perused the authorities cited before me. Applying the ratio decided by the Apex Court and considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise, so also the wife, complainant is not willing to pursue the complaint against the petitioners. Therefore, it will be futile exercise to continue with the criminal proceedings as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra), has held that "The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests or 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 would prevent women from settling earlier." 7. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 86/2005 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Court below is hereby quashed and set aside.The criminal misc. petition stands allowed accordingly.Petition allowed. *******