Judgment An I.A. bearing I.A.(Crl). No. 2284 pf 2010 had been filed, wherein, prayer had been made to exempt has been made to exempt the petitioner from filing surrender certificate for entertaining this revision application. 2. When that application was pressed this Court vide order dated 1.10.2010 referred the matter to the Division Bench for settling the following issue:- Whether when both the parties have compromised their case outside the Court and file a joint compromise petition for compound the offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C., in the revision application so filed by the petitioners, the said revision application can be posted for admission without surrender by the petitioners in the trial court in view of the aforesaid Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules? 3. The said issue was decided by the Devision Bench of this Court in the following terms : However, in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that if a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed in the Revision Application, by the persons convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A/34/323/406 IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for exemption from surrendering on the basis of the settlement between the parties, one way or the other, before or after conviction, such petition can be posted before learned Single Judge and Section 320 Cr.P.C. or Rule 159 of the J.H.C. Rules will not create bar for the learned Single Judge in exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in exempting the petitioners from surrendering in the trial court, for entertaining or passing other orders as the court may think fit and proper. 4. Here in the instant case as has been stated on behalf of the parties that after the petitioners were convicted and sentenced, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged before the appellate court who affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Then this revision application was filed and during pendency of the revision application the parties settled their disputes amicably, whereby, a joint compromise petition has been filed and under this situation the petitioners are exempted from filing surrender certificate. 5. Thus, this revision application is being entertained without their being surrender certificate. 6. Accordingly, I.A.(Crl.) No.2284 of 2010, stands allowed. Criminal Revision No.826 of 2010. 7. 5. Thus, this revision application is being entertained without their being surrender certificate. 6. Accordingly, I.A.(Crl.) No.2284 of 2010, stands allowed. Criminal Revision No.826 of 2010. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that these two petitioners being husband and the brother-in-law and also the mother-in-law, who during pendency of this revision application has died, were put on trial for an offence under Section 498A /34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for an offence under Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. These two petitioners and also the mother-in-law were convicted for the said offences and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 8. That order was challenged before the appellate court and the appellate court affirmed the order, passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with those two orders, this revision application has been filed. 9. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of revision application, the parties with the help of well-wishers got their disputes settled and hence, they have filed a joint compromise petition and, therefore, the joint compromise petition be accepted and the petitioners be acquitted in view of the ratio laid down in a case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another { (2003)4 SCC 675 }. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it does appear that the parties have settled their disputes after order of conviction was affirmed by the appellate court and when the revision application was pending before this Court. Therefore, now it becomes expedient to quash the proceeding in view of the proposition laid down in a case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre { (1988) 1 SCC 692 }, wherein it has been 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 are 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 proceeding. 11. Subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra) taking notice of the said decision observed that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident and hence, it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. 12. As I have stated above that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have filed a joint compromise petition and hence, parties are allowed to compound the offence. In that view of the matter, it becomes expedient to quash the orders passed by both courts below. 13. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 6.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1392 of 2005 (T.R. No.940 of 2009) and also the judgment and order dated 27.08.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Vth, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2009 are hereby, set aside and the petitioners are acquitted from the charges. 14. In the result this application stands allowed.