JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant-wife as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 135/2007 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Both the learned counsels for the parties submits that the both the parties have entered into a compromise resolving their matrimonial dispute, therefore, in terms of compromise arrived at the parties and in view of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 : 2003-04 Cr.L.R. (SC) (Suppl.) 531 , the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court in Criminal Regular Case No. 135/2007 may be quashed. The compromise arrived at between the parties has also been verified before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in the presence of respective parties. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) has held as under : "11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 692 , 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 appear 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 is 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. 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said 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 re-approchement 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 amicably 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. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing 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 counter-productive 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 Indian Penal Code." 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully perused the authorities cited before me. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code." 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also carefully perused the authorities cited before me. Applying the ratio decided by the Apex Court and considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise, so also, the wife-complainant is not willing to pursue any proceedings against the petitioner-husband and she has decided to live with her husband-respondent No. 1, this Court while exercising inherent powers in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, deems it just and proper to allow this revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 135/2007 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. are set aside. 7. In the result, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed as indicated herein above.Petition allowed. *******