Judgment 1. Learned HCGP accepts notice on behalf of first respondent. Sri D.R.B asavarajappa, learned advocate filed appearance for second respondent. 2. With the consent of learned advocates on both sides, the case is taken up for final hearing. 3. The marriage of first petitioner with second respondent was solemnized on 7.6.2010. Respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.3310/2014 in the Family Court, Bangalore, to pass decree of divorce and for dissolution of the said marriage. The case having been referred to Mediation, the couple arrived at an amicable settlement. The agreed terms were reduced into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of C.P.C. r/w. Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 on 18.9.2014. Based on the said settlement, M.C.No.3310/2014 was decreed on 20.9.2014 by the Family Court, Bangalore. 4. C.Misc.No.313/2012 filed by the second respondent against the petitioner in the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate/Traffic Court at Bangalore was dismissed on 20.9.2014. 5. Second respondent having filed a complaint before the first respondent, a case in Crime No.380/2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case is still under investigation. 6. Seeking quashing of the proceedings in the case registered as Crime No.380/2012, in Chandra Layout Police Station, Bangalore and F.I.R filed before the VIII Additional C.M.M. at Bangalore, this petition was filed on 12.11.2014. 7. The second and third petitioners are the parents' of first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the sister of first petitioner. All the petitioners and the second respondent, along with her father, are present before the Court and they are identified by their learned advocates. 8. Respondent No.2 submitted that she may be permitted to compound the offence in respect of which a complaint was filed and a case in Crime No.380/2012 was registered in the Chandra Layout Police Station and F.I.R was sent to the Court of VIII Additional C.M.M., Bangalore. 9. In terms of the settlement arrived at and the Memorandum of Settlement filed in M.C.No.3310/2014, the first petitioner delivered to the second respondent, a Pay Order bearing No.196549 dated 14.11.2014 of Canara Bank, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40, for a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs. The second respondent acknowledged the receipt of said Pay Order, delivered to her in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement filed in M.C.No.3310/2014. 10. The second respondent acknowledged the receipt of said Pay Order, delivered to her in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement filed in M.C.No.3310/2014. 10. The matrimonial relationship between the first petitioner and the second respondent has been terminated with the passing of decree of divorce and the consequential dissolution in M.C.No.3310/2014. The said case was decreed based on the mutual settlement arrived at by the parties. 11. In JITENDRA RAGHUVANSHI vs. BABITA RAGHUVANSHI, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , Apex Court has held that "even if the offences are non compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of such offences can be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C". 12. Having regard to the aforesaid proceedings and the statement made by the second respondent, in the presence of her father, I am satisfied that no pressure has been exerted on the second respondent to compound the offence. The statement made by the second respondent that the matter has been settled and she may be permitted to compound the offence in respect of which the said complaint was lodged and a criminal case was registered, is voluntary. The parties having mutually agreed to terminate their disputes, continuance of the proceedings on the file of the first respondent and the jurisdictional Court would amount to abuse of process. In order to meet the ends of justice, as all the disputes between the parties have come to an end, there is need to quash the case registered in Crime No.380/2012 on the file of the first respondent. In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding is quashed.