Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 4.2.2010, the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Shipra is present in person before this Court. The mater has been compromised between the parties and confirmed that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement/agreement without any pressure. 3. This writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no. 61of 2009 dated 12.11.2009 against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 51 of 2009 under Sections 498-A/323/506 I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to the petition. 4. It is submitted that on 19.1.2010 petitioner and opposite party no. 2 had entered into compromise and it was settled that the petitioner will give Rs. 3.60 lacs cash to the opposite party no. 2 and all jewelry whatsoever was given at the time of marriage ceremony or afterwards would be handed over to the opposite party no. 2. They have also agreed to withdraw all cases filed against each other to end the dispute including the present case specifically mentioned in para 5 of the agreement. 5. Since admittedly the matter has been compromised between the parties as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, therefore, it would be a futile exercise if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue before the Court below. 6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 . 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. 7. 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. 7. 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 is not contemplated by the Court." 8. The words "Nothing in this Code" used in Section 482 is non-obstante clause, and given it overriding effect over other provisions in the Cr.P.C. 9. 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. 10. The provision of 482 Cr.P.C. was enacted to emphasize 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 made the necessary orders to secure the interest of justice. 11. 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 technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of criminal proceeding and where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. 12. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet no. 61 of 2009 in Case Crime No. 51 of 2009 under Sections 498-A/323/506 I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow is hereby quashed.