JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surendra Singh, J.—By the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing of the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 672 of 2008 arising out of case Crime No. 54/08, (State of U.P. v. Prashant Bist and others) under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Indrapuram District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad. 2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Prashant Bist applicant No. 1 was married with opposite party No. 2 Geeta Rawat who is informant of case crime No. 54/08, under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Indrapuram District Ghaziabad. The F.I.R. of the said crime number was lodged by her on 15.1.08 in respect of the incident in between dated 4.12.06 till 8.1.07. In the said F.I.R. all the applicants were mentioned as accused persons. 3. The allegations in brief were that opposite party No. 2 was married with applicant No. 2 on 14.12.06, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for Rs. 10 lacs as additional dowry by the applicants after marriage. It is alleged that on the date and time of the incident she was beaten and was turned out from their house by the applicants on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand. In order to settle the dispute, a Panchayat was convened but the attempt of compromise could not be materialized. Thereafter on the basis of said allegations the F.I.R. was registered at police station Indrapuram in the above case crime. 4. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under the aforesaid sections vide charge-sheet No. 285/08 in the concerned Court of Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate took the cognizance for the offence against all the applicants. Hence this application has been moved by the accused persons for quashing of the aforesaid proceedings pending against them. After some gap of time informant as well as charge-sheeted accused applicants settling their differences came to terms and entered into a compromise with the help of some respectable persons. Now the matter has been set at rest between the parties as both the parties have entered into compromise. In terms of such compromise an application to this effect on their behalf was moved before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad which is still pending. Now the matter has been set at rest between the parties as both the parties have entered into compromise. In terms of such compromise an application to this effect on their behalf was moved before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad which is still pending. This fact has not been denied by the opposite party. 5. I have heard Sri Jagdamba Prasad and Anubhav Trivedi Advocates on behalf of the applicants and Sri Naveen Yadav Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 2 informant Smt. Geeta Rawat and the learned A.G.A. at a great length and perused the material placed on record. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have urged that since it is a case of matrimonial dispute and the parties have come to a compromise, therefore, no useful purpose will be served to drag both the parties to the Court for the purpose of completing the formalities of the case and more so when the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are living as husband and wife together with their family members happily. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings against the applicants pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material placed on the record I find that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute on account of petty matter and both of them have settled their dispute and entered into a compromise and they do not want to further proceed in the matter. In such eventuality there would almost be no chance of conviction, therefore, it would not be proper to decline the exercise of power for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. 8. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 SCC (Crl.) 848, that the power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not circumscribed by Section 320, Cr.P.C. It has been further held, in para 14 of the said judgment that : “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 hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against the interest of woman and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likely-hood that the 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.” 9. The sum and substance of the dictum of the Apex Court does not permit me to take a different view except the view expressed by the Apex Court. 10. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. It will, therefore, be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding against the applicants at this stage itself. In these circumstances the ends of justice would be subserved if this application is allowed. 11. Resultantly, this application is allowed. Criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 672 of 2008 arising out of case Crime No. 54/08, (State of U.P. v. Prashant Bist and others) under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Indrapuram District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad, is quashed. ————