JUDGMENT Bhanwaroo Khan, J. - Petitioners Bablu and Sohina @ Bobby who are husband and wife have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 443 of 1997, State v. Bablu pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The proceedings in the criminal case are sought to be quashed on the basis of the compromise having entered in between them out of the Court.2. The facts relevant for the decision of this case in brief are that on the basis of a typed report submitted by petitioner No. 2 to the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur, F.I.R. No. 211/1997 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The police after investigation in the matter submitted a charge sheet against petitioner Bablu Khan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur where a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. is pending vide criminal case No. 443/1997. During pendency of criminal proceedings, the parties settled their disputes out of the Court and on 15.4.2000 submitted an application along with the compromise deed before the trial Court and prayed that the compromise be attested and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 15.4.2000 refused to do so observing that offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is not compoundable. Hence, the petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the parties have settled their disputes out of the Court by mutual consent, the matrimonial tie between the parties has broken up and the parties are living peacefully separately forgetting their disputes then continuance of proceedings in the case would not serve any useful purpose rather will affect the future life of the parties. On the strength of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that the proceedings in the criminal case between the parties may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 RCC (SC) 400. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 RCC (SC) 400. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 all the disputes. 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.5. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 443/1997 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur arising out of F.I.R. No. 211/1997 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. *******