JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Dixit, J.—Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for O.P. No. 1 and Shri Alok Singh Chauhan learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. By the instant petition, under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2528/2008 (Smt. Neetu Singh Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh and others) under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section ¾, D.P. Act, Police Station Jalal Pur, District Ambedkar Nagar pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambedkar Nagar, (U.P.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and because of that the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 2528/2008 has been lodged by O.P. No. 2. For the purpose of settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2008. The parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving their disputes and differences. The Settlement/Agreement entered into on 24.2.2009 between the petitioner, Santosh Kumar Singh (husband) and O.P. No. 2, Smt. Neetu Singh @ Pinki (wife) is placed on record. The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Singh and O.P. No. 2, Smt. Neetu Singh @ Pinki who are identified by their learned counsels appeared in person before this Court on 9.9.2009 and confirmed that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement/agreement. It was settled between the parties that they shall withdraw all the cases between the parties pending before the Courts below. The petitioner and O.P. No. 2 also reaffirmed that they agreed to lead harmonious married life. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that offence under Section 498-A, IPC is non-compoundable offence and due to this legal hurdle they could not file a formal compromise before the Court below. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint case under Section 498-A, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section ¾, D.P. Act be quashed by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 . 6. In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions : (1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. 7. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 464, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 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. 8. In B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court made reference to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 in which it was held that considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. 9. The Hon’ble Bench made reference to the decision in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 (Cri) 234 in which it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. 10. The Hon’ble Bench also made reference to the decision in the case of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733 in which it was observed 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 repprochement 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 amicable 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. 11. 11. The Hon’ble Bench observed 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 punish 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 counterproductive 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 the Indian Penal Code. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court propounded the law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 13. In the present case, the parties have voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving their disputes and differences. It was settled between the parties that they shall withdraw all the cases between the parties pending before the Courts below. The provision of Section 482, Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under : “The High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then the High Court will entertain the application and make the necessary orders even though the application is not contemplated by the Court.” The words “Nothing in this Code” used in Section 482 is non-obstante clause, and give it overriding effect over other provisions in the Cr.P.C. 14. The inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. Inherent power is wide in nature. Such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. 15. Inherent power is wide in nature. Such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. 15. The provision of 482, Cr.P.C. was enacted to empahasize the fact that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then High Court will entertain the application and make the necessary orders to secure the interest of justice. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in above mentioned cases, it is a fit case where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is required to be evoked for the purpose of securing the ends of justice particularly in keeping in mind the future of the family and harmonious married life of petitioner and O.P. No. 2. 17. Consequently, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2528/2008 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section ¾, D.P. Act, Police Station Jalal Pur, District Ambedkar Nagar pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambedkar Nagar, (U.P.) are hereby quashed. ————