Judgment :- The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners have filed the present revision to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 12. 2008 and to discharge them from the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005. They also preferred the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009 to compound the offence. Inasmuch as both the matters are inter-connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the 1st petitioner, a case in C.C.No.5797of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sec.498(A) IPC, was taken up for trial and P.Ws.1 to 3 including the defacto-complainant/wife were examined. In the meantime, based on the petition submitted by the petitioner/wife and the accused/husband, mutually consenting for divorce, the Principal Family Court, Chennai granted decree of dissolution of marriage. The defacto-complainant agreed to receive Rs.30,000/-as permanent alimony with an undertaking to withdraw her case in CC No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate. Only under such circumstances, a petition under Sec.320 Cr.P.C was filed for compounding the offence. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned, stating that it is a non-compoundable offence and jurisdiction is not vested with him, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against such order, the present revision has been filed along with a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009, filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C accompanied by the affidavits of the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner. 3. Both the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner appeared before the Court today. 4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record. 5. With regard to the issue involved, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003 Crl.L.J 2028), wherein it is categorically held that while exercising powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, the High Court, in matrimonial matters can take into account the compromise entered into between the parties and permit them to compound the non-compoundable offence and also clarified that Sec.320 Cr.P.C would not be a bar in that regard. 6. 6. In the case on hand, pending trial of the case before the learned Magistrate, proceedings were initiated before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. Both the parties, by mutual consent, dissolved their marriage. The defacto-complainant received Rs.30,000/- as permanent alimony and agreed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate. Only under such circumstances, a petition has been filed, however, it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. CC No.5797 of 2005 pending on the file of learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is quashed and both the criminal revision and criminal original petition are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.