Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.;- In compliance of the order dated 9.2.2001 passed by this Court, Petitioner No.1-Saurabh Misra and opposite party no.2-Alka Awasthi are present in person before this Court. 2. Heard the petitioner No.1 in person, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of case No.493 of 2003, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, (Alka Awasthi v. Saurabh Misra and others) arising out of the first information report dated 5.5.2001 registered at Crime No.304 of 2001 Police Station City Kotwali District Bahraich under Section 498-A 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in terms of the compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and because of that an F.I.R. of the aforesaid criminal case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioners. 5. Submission of the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 is that they have entered into an agreement which was duly executed between them on 21.8.2007 in which they agreed for a consent decree for dissolution of marriage and closing all the criminal or civil proceedings by moving relevant applications in the proceedings for that purpose. The settlement/agreement entered into on 21.8.2007 between petitioner no.1-Sri Saurabh Misra (Husband) and opposite party no.2-Smt.Alka Awasthi (Wife) is placed on record. Sri Saurabh Misra-petitioner no.1 who has presented this petition in person and Smt.Alka Awasthi-opposite party no.2, who is identified by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 appeared before this Court and confirmed that they have voluntarily and of their own free-will arrived at this settlement/agreement. It was settled between the parties that opposite party no.2-Smt.Alka Awasthi does not want to proceed any legal action against her husband petitioner no.1- Saurabh Misra and other petitioners (Family members of petitioner no.1) in future. The opposite party no.2-Smt.Alka Awasthi reaffirmed before this Court that she does not want to proceed with the aforesaid criminal case pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bahraich. The opposite party no.2-Smt.Alka Awasthi reaffirmed before this Court that she does not want to proceed with the aforesaid criminal case pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bahraich. The petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 also stated that they have dissolved their marriage by mutual consent and accordingly petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 filed a joint petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baharaich, which was registered as regular suit no.468 of 2007 and learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahraich was pleased to pass order dated 29.1.2009 allowing the joint petition and dissolving the marriage of petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2. 6. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that since some of the sections in the aforesaid criminal case are non-compoundable and due to this legal hurdle they could not file a formal compromise before the court below. Therefore, the proceeding in the aforesaid criminal case No..493 of 2003, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, (Alka Awasthi v. Saurabh Misra and others) arising out of the first information report dated 5.5.2001 registered at Crime No.304 of 2001 Police Station City Kotwali District Bahraich under Section 498-A 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 . 8. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others (Supra) 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 Cr.P.C. 9. 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.? 10. The words ?Nothing in this Code? 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the law propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Others (Supra), it is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of criminal proceeding, since the parties have decided that all the proceedings should come to an end so that the parties may shelve their disputes and lead a peaceful life, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise 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. 14. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No.493 of 2003, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, titled as Alka Awasthi v. Saurabh Misra and others arising out of the first information report dated 5.5.2001 registered at Crime No.304 of 2001 Police Station City Kotwali District Bahraich under Section 498-A , 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.