ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 876 of 2008 including order dated 04.12.2008, passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 379, 313 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 3. The entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their matrimonial dispute resolved and thereby, they have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise petition has been filed before the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after the case was lodged, good sense prevailed upon the parties and thereby, the parties got their dispute resolved, whereby, it has been agreed that the petitioners would be paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and that Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant on 7.7.2012, on which date, an application was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and it has agreed upon that further Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid at the time of Second motion to be made before the Family Court and that Rs.1,00,000/- would be paid at the time of hearing of this quashing application. 5. Learned counsel further submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise in a matrimonial dispute, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance be quashed, in view of the ratio laid down in a case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003 (2) East Cr C 220 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 675 and also in a case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr., 2011 (1) East Cr C 121 (SC) : (2011) 4 JLJR (SC) 421. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party admits that the parties have got their matrimonial dispute resolved in the terms as has been stated on behalf of the petitioners. 7. v. Radhika and Anr., 2011 (1) East Cr C 121 (SC) : (2011) 4 JLJR (SC) 421. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party admits that the parties have got their matrimonial dispute resolved in the terms as has been stated on behalf of the petitioners. 7. It be stated that the offences under Sections 498-A and 313 of the Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable in terms of the provision as contained in Section 320 of the Cr PC but there would be no bar of Section 320 of Cr PC for the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 of Cr PC for the ends of justice particularly when matrimonial dispute has been settled. 8. In this regard case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 be referred to wherein it has been observed as hereunder :- "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives• of her husband. Section 498-A 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 hypertechnical view would be counterproductive 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 the Indian Penal Code." 9. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr., (2011) 4 JLJR (SC) 421 has held as under :- "Coming to the case at hand we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties which dispute has it appears been resolved by them. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties which dispute has it appears been resolved by them. That being so, continuation of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some "misunderstanding and misconception" will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eye-witnesses who are closely related to the complainant are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 Cr PC could in such circumstances be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the Courts below." 10. Under the circumstances there has been no difficulty in accepting submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners so far offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned. 11. It be further stated that the offence of causing miscarriage punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code in the fact and circumstances of the case is not made out as it has simply been alleged that the accused person forcibly brought the complainant to Bhawnathpur where on account of receiving some hurt there had been miscarriage which allegation will certainly not attract an offence under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code defines causing miscarriage which reads as follows :- "Causing miscarriage.-Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three yean or with fine or with both; and if the woman be quick with child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine". 12. From its perusal it does appear that whoever voluntarily causes a women with child to miscarry he would be punished for an offence under Section 313 of IPC. Here in the instant case the petitioner has never been allege to have assaulted the victim with a view to cause miscarriage. 12. From its perusal it does appear that whoever voluntarily causes a women with child to miscarry he would be punished for an offence under Section 313 of IPC. Here in the instant case the petitioner has never been allege to have assaulted the victim with a view to cause miscarriage. Under the circumstances the offence under Section 313 of IPC never gets attracted. 13. Similar is the position with respect to offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as there does not appear to be any allegation constituting offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Under the circumstances the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 876 of 2008 including order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2008 is hereby quashed so far the petitioners are concerned. 15. In the result this application stands allowed. Application allowed.