JUDGMENT V.M. DESHPANDE, J. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are wife and husband. Their marriage took place on 26.6.2011. Immediately after the marriage, it runs into rough weather. Both could not concile with each other resulting into the petitioner No. 1 opting to part away with petitioner No. 2 and started residing along with her parents at Aurangabad, while the petitioner continued to reside at Pune where he is employed. 3. On 11.12.2012 a complaint was lodged by the petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner No. 2 and one Anita Anil Sheshgir, who is mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 1 with Police Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, an offence punishable u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC was registered against them. The Investigating Officer of the said crime filed charge-sheet before the competent Court on 22.5.2013. 4. According to the petitioners, when it was found by them that it is really not possible for them to pull along with each other, on 8.8.2013 both the petitioners filed mutual divorce proceedings before the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. The said petition has been filed u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. According to the petitioners, as per the amicable settlement which they reached at, the petitioner No. 1 agrees to withdraw all her allegations made against the petitioner No. 2 and his mother in the first information report registered with Police Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. 5. Petitioner No.1 is present in the Court, she is identified by the Counsel. According to her, since the petitioners have decided to lead peaceful life in future, she is not interested in prosecuting her complaint. The Court has verified genuineness and truthfulness of the compromise from the petitioner No.1, who is present in the Court. It is informed to the Court that due to professional reason the petitioner No. 2 is unable to attend the Court. However, since it is the petitioner No. 1 who is complainant and who wants to withdraw all allegations, presence of the petitioner No.2 is dispensed with. 6. It is informed to the Court that due to professional reason the petitioner No. 2 is unable to attend the Court. However, since it is the petitioner No. 1 who is complainant and who wants to withdraw all allegations, presence of the petitioner No.2 is dispensed with. 6. Except offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, all other offences are compoundable in view of the provisions of section 320 Cr.P.C. We find that this is a fit case wherein the Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Sitaram Madhavrao Wagh & Anr vs. District Superintendent of Police & ors. 2014(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri)1 : [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1212]. in para 13 of the judgment observed that the scope and ambit of powers of this Court conferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are enunciated in the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012(4) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 428 : [2013 ALL SCR 171). The Apex Court observed that the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and the same has to be exercised in accordance with the guideline engrafted in such power viz, (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 8. Looking to the fact that the petitioners are husband and wife and the fact that they have decided to part away from each other and in fact, they have filed petition for mutual divorce, which is pending before the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. In view of these statements in the petition as well as the statement by the petitioner No. 1, who is present in the Court that they have settled their dispute amicably and she does not wish to prosecute her complaint, no fruitful purpose will be served in allowing to remain the First Information Report on record and consequent Regular Criminal Case pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, bearing RCC No. 849/2013. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction in order to meet the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction in order to meet the ends of justice. 9. Hence, following order : ORDER (i) FIR No. 386/2012 dated 11.12.2012 filed with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC is quashed and set aside; (ii) Regular Criminal Case No. 849/2013 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC is quashed and set aside. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition allowed.