JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. petition has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings going on against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. 2. The counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner and the complainant-respondent have submitted that the dispute between the parties was essentially of differences of opinion between two spouses and now the matter has been settled between the spouses. The lump-sum amount of Rs. 9 lacs has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant-respondent as maintenance. An application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent has also been filed in the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur. In this view of the matter, the complainant-respondent does not wish to pursue the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. An application for compromise was filed before the trial Court which has been accepted to the extent of Section 406 I.P.C., but the learned trial Court has rejected the application for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. as the same is non-compoundable. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. The undisputed facts as stated to this Court are that the F.I.R. was filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. Subsequently, the disputes have been settled between the parties. The disputes were essentially of matrimonial disharmony and subsequent to the filing of the challan, the matter has been settled between the parties and an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed before the competent Court. The petitioner has also submitted a demand draft towards a full and final settlement with the complainant-respondent to the tune of Rs. 9 Lacs. An application for compromise of the criminal case has also been filed before the Court below. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court feels that the possibility of the petitioner being convicted in the matter is absolutely remote and once the matrimonial disputes between the parties have been settled, then permitting the criminal prosecution to go on tent amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2141/2010 going on against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan are, hereby, quashed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******