ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the husband, petitioner no.1 herein, having filed a suit for divorce being Suit No. 40A of 2002, the wife impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein, by way of counter blast submitted Complaint Petition No. 545 of 2002 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, and following an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance under Sections 498-A, 379 IPC was taken against the two petitioners by order dated 28.6.2002 passed therein and that is the order impugned. 2. It appears that during the pendency of the divorce case as also the complaint petition a compromise was arrived at between the parties out of Court on the advice of relatives, friends and well wishers. According to the amicable settlement the husband was to withdraw the divorce case and the complainant wife was to withdraw the criminal cases filed by her against her husband and it was decided that they would live cordially as husband and wife. 3. Admittedly an offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable but when the complainant wife has given up her allegation of being subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home at the hands of her husband and relatives of the husband and was willing to live cordially with the husband and in-laws the fact that Section 498A IPC is not compoundable cannot be a bar to the Court exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The law is well settled by the decision in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein it was observed that the object of introducing Chapter XXA in the Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A IPC was added with a view to punishing a husband or his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demand of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of woman and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non exercise of inherent power to quash the proceeding to meet the ends of justice would prevent woman from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of the Penal Code. 4. There is every likelihood that non exercise of inherent power to quash the proceeding to meet the ends of justice would prevent woman from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of the Penal Code. 4. Since the parties have amicably compunded their differences and disputes and the husband having agreed to keep the complainant wife in the matrimonial home with all dignity and cordiality and the complainant wife having agreed to live in the matrimonial home giving a go-by to her complaints and in view of the fact that she is presently living with all dignity and cordiality in the matrimonial home no gainful purpose would be served by keeping the litigation pending. 5. Accordingly in view of the discussions made above and the facts and circumstances of the case this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby set aside.