JUDGMENT : KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. This petition has been filed by husband Surjeet Singh for quashing FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008, registered at Police Station, Amb, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC at the instance of wife Smt. Rekha Rani respondent No. 2. The prayer has also been made for quashing the case No. 13-II of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb arising out of challan filed in the Court in FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008. The facts in brief are that petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 5.4.2000 and from their wedlock two children, one male child now aged about 9 years and a female child now aged about 7 years were born. The differences developed between husband and wife and they could not pull together. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate against petitioner, his father, mother and sister-in-law alleging that father of the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty. The respondent No. 2 was subjected to maltreatment by the petitioner and his family members. In July, 2008, respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and is residing with her parents; from there petitioner took away the male child from her custody. On the basis of complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008 was registered at Police Station, Amb. In pursuance of said FIR, challan has been submitted against petitioner and his family members which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb in the form of Crl. Case No. 13-II of 2009, titled State of H.P. vs. Surjeet Singh and Others. 3. The respondent No. 2 had also filed petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance to her and her daughter which was allowed by learned Magistrate on 3.12.2008. The respondent No. 2, to enforce the order filed an application before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb. However, during the pendency of that petition written compromise took place between petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 27.9.2011. The respondent No. 2 made a statement before learned Magistrate on 29.9.2011 stating therein that the matter has been compromised, she does not want to proceed with the execution of the maintenance order and the same be dismissed. 4. However, during the pendency of that petition written compromise took place between petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 27.9.2011. The respondent No. 2 made a statement before learned Magistrate on 29.9.2011 stating therein that the matter has been compromised, she does not want to proceed with the execution of the maintenance order and the same be dismissed. 4. In the compromise dated 27.9.2011, the parties have agreed that they cannot live together and the cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and u/s 498-A IPC are pending. The one time settlement amount has been paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. The male child of the parties will remain with the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 will withdraw the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and will not pursue the case u/s 498A IPC. In these circumstances, FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008, Police Station, Amb and consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate may be set aside. The respondent No. 2 has sworn affidavit dated 3.11.2011 that case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been compromised and she is not interested to pursue the criminal case now pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb. The respondent No. 2 has no objection; if the FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008 and the proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed. The notice was issued. The respondent No. 2 appeared in the Court on 19.12.2011 and 12.1.2012. On 5.3 2012, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has stated that respondent No. 2 has no objection, if the petition is allowed. It has also been submitted that affidavit dated 3.11.2011 of respondent No. 2 is already on record. 5. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that matter has been settled between the parties on 27.9.2011, a copy of compromise dated 27.9.2011 has been placed on record. The respondent No. 2 has also sworn affidavit dated 3.11.2011 which has been placed on record by petitioner. In B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, it has been held that powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are not, in any manner controlled by Section 320 of the Code. 6. The respondent No. 2 has also sworn affidavit dated 3.11.2011 which has been placed on record by petitioner. In B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, it has been held that powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are not, in any manner controlled by Section 320 of the Code. 6. The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and Others v. Radhika and Another 2011 (10) SCC 705 has held as follows:- It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 Cr.P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable u/s 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. 7. In Criminal Case No. 178-1/1999, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 109 IPC the case pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(II), Una was quashed by learned Single Judge. In another case reported as Rajinder Singh and Others v. State of H.P. and Another 2004 (2) SLC 5 after the settlement of dispute between the parties, the proceedings under Sections 498-A, 34, 506 and 323 IPC pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb were quashed. 8. In the present case, the FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008, has been registered at Police Station, Amb and thereafter the proceedings are pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb were quashed. 8. In the present case, the FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008, has been registered at Police Station, Amb and thereafter the proceedings are pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb. In the petition, it has been stated that petitioner and respondent No. 2 have compromised their matrimonial dispute. The respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw execution petition arising out of maintenance order. It has also been stated that one time settlement amount has been paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. The parties have agreed that male child will remain with the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 has agreed not to pursue the criminal case pending in the Court arising out of FIR lodged by her. A compromise dated 27.9.2011 between the parties has been placed on record. 9. In the affidavit dated 3.11.2011, the respondent No. 2 has stated that she has compromised the disputes with her husband Surjeet Singh and in the settlement lumpsum amount has been received from her husband. The female child will remain with respondent No. 2 and the male child will remain with petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is not interested to pursue the criminal case lodged by her and pending in the Court. She has no objection if FIR filed by her and consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside being compromised. On 5.3.2012 the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has again stated that the matter has been settled between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has no objection, if the petition is allowed. In view of stand now taken by petitioner and respondent No. 2 the continuation of case against petitioner very likely will be an exercise in futility. It appears respondent No. 2 and her witnesses may not support the prosecution case, therefore, to keep the system of administration of justice unpolluted, a situation where the witness, for certain compelling reason, is likely to make false statement on oath, has to be dealt with in a manner most suited to meet the ends of justice. It appears this situation exists in the present case. It appears this situation exists in the present case. In the interest of justice, it is a fit case where FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008, registered at Police Station, Amb under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC and criminal proceedings arising out of said FIR pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb are liable to be quashed. Hence, petition is allowed, FIR No. 190 dated 2.9.2008, registered at Police Station, Amb under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC and criminal proceedings arising out of said FIR pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Amb are quashed.