Judgment S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocates for the parties. Rule. Mr. R.C. Kodekar, Learned APP for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Patadiya for Respondent No. 2- original complainant respectively waives service of notice of rule. Rule is fixed forthwith with the consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioners have taken out this petition invoking provision of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint being Case No. 77 of 2012 pending before Learned JMFC 3rd Court, Vadodara, filed under the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also to quash the notice issued under Section 13(1) of the Said Act dated 27/11/2012 in case No. 77 of 2012, and further proceedings arising there from. 3. The matter is compromised and settled between the parties with the help of mediation. In view of this, learned counsels for the parties have requested this Court to dispose of the matter and the complaint may be quashed. 4. Learned advocates for the parties have submitted that the complaint was filed on account of matrimonial dispute, which are private dispute. Learned advocates for the parties have stated that the dispute has now been settled amicably and compromise has been arrived at between them, and now there is no dispute between the parties. In view of amicable settlement, if the complaint is quashed, then complainant has no objection. The Respondent No. 2 has agreed to give consent for quashing of the case and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Hence quashment of the same is sought by way of this petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC pg. 58, wherein it is observed by the Apex Court that to lead peaceful life and to meet the ends of justice in a dispute arising out of matrimonial discord it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes even though the offences are non-compoundable; and another decision in case B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. Learned advocate also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and another decision in case of Jay Rajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, reported in GLR 2013 (1) pg. 65, as well as the observations of this Court in case of Rajbha Babhbha @ Rajendrasinh Annirudhsinh Sarvaiya & Ors., in Criminal Misc. Application No. 260/2013, decided on 21/2/2013; and submitted that in light of the observations in these judgments the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. 6. This Court is of the considered view that looking to the averments in the case filed under Domestic Violence Act and the subsequent settlement arrived at between the parties, if are considered in light of the above observations of the Apex Court, then, there exists no scope of any further proceedings in the matter, as it would amount to creating consternation to the parties for no reason and in light of this development conviction is not even remotely plausible. 7. Further, in light of the above observations when the offence is predominantly in arena of private dispute and when the settlement between the parties have arrived at and there is no harm to person and property, continuation of the proceedings would create consternation and would be counter productive of justice. The Court shall strive to perpetuate a situation where peace is prevailed rather than creating consternation of feuds between the parties. 8. In view of this, as the nature of complaint being that of matrimonial, the case filed and pending before Learned JMFC, 3rd Court, Vadodara, being Case No. 77 of 2012 filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the present petitioners under Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the notice issued there under Section 13(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 dated 27/11/2012; along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted. * * * * *