S. C. Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C. No. 7042 of 2010 has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet filed in Case Crime No. 646 of 2009 as well as the proceedings of Case No. 425 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, I.P.C. and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Kotwali, district Etawah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, whereas Crl. Misc. Application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. No. 8890 of 2010 has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 83 of 2010, Smt. Rajnt v. Ramit Kumar and others, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P. S. Kotwali, district Etawah, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-IV, Etawah. 3. Since both the cases are between the same parties and relate to matrimonial dispute between Ramit Kumar @ Munna @ Jayant and Smt. Rajni, d/o Mijaji lal, they are being disposed of together. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the joint compromise affidavit has been filed in Crl. Misc. Application No. 7042 of 2010. Ramit Kumar and Smt Rajnt, have decided to live together and, therefore, proceedings in both the cases be quashed. 5. Admittedly, Ramit Kumar @ Munria and Smt. Rajni, d/o Mijazi lal are husband and wife. Due to matrimonial dispute, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 498A, 323, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D.P. Act, by Mijazi lal. A complaint was also lodged against the husband Ramit Kumar @ Munna and their family members under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 6. Today, Ramit Ramit Kumar @ Munna @ Jayant and Smt. Rajni are present in Court in person, who are identified by Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants in both the applications. Both the parties stated before the Court that all the dispute between them have sorted out and they are living together with love affection. Smt. Rajni further states that she does not wish to proceed with the cases filed against her husband and his family members. 7. Both cases are matrimonial disputes.. In pursuance of order dated 8.3.2010, passed by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J., the dispute was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Smt. Rajni further states that she does not wish to proceed with the cases filed against her husband and his family members. 7. Both cases are matrimonial disputes.. In pursuance of order dated 8.3.2010, passed by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J., the dispute was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and on 2.2.2011 settlement agreement was executed. The settlement agreement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the joint affidavit filed on 13.3.2011. In the first line of the agreement the date has been mentioned as 2.2.2011, but at the bottom of the page the date has been wrongly mentioned as 2.2.2010. Paras 6 and 7 of the settlement agreement are as follows : 6 (a) That both shall live as husband and wife with all love care for each other from today. (b) That all the cases pending between them shall be withdrawn by them and no case shall remain pending against each other. (cj That husband shall not indulge in any kind of untoward incidents with his wife and shall behave carefully and lovingly without inflicting any harm on any account towards his wife. 7, By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to Crl. Misc. Application No. 7042 of 2010 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation. 8. As per settlement agreement, the parties have decided to live together and are living together. The applicants have assured to Smt. Rajni that they would not misbehave with her and she have no objection in allowing their applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C. d. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that all the disputes between the' parties have been sorted out and applicant No. 1 and Smt. Rajni are living together with love and affection and have no complaint against each other. He further contended that in view of the compromise between the parties, the proceedings pending before the trial court be quashed. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 : 2008 (2) ACR 1892 (SC). emphasized in para No. 6 as follows : "6. He further contended that in view of the compromise between the parties, the proceedings pending before the trial court be quashed. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 : 2008 (2) ACR 1892 (SC). emphasized in para No. 6 as follows : "6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 11. The instant disputes, being matrimonial disputes, are of a purely personal nature. All the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled with the intervention of the Mediation Centre, and the parties have entered into a compromise and both husband and wife are living together with love and affection. 12. In these circumstances, it is futile to permit continuation of the criminal cases pending before the Magistrate below and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid cases are permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. It would not only be harmful to the cordial relations between the parties, but would be sheer waste of time of the Court and no result in favour of the prosecution can be expected. 13. Both the applications under Section 482, Cr, P.C. are allowed. 14. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 425 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 646 of 2009, under Sections 498A, 323, I.P.C. and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 83 of 2010, Smt. Rqjni v. Ramit Kumar and others, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P. S. Kotwali, district Etawah, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, are quashed. _____________