JUDGMENT S.K. Palo, J. 1. Petitioners and non-petitioner No. 2 are present in person. They have been identified by their respective counsels. 2. This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings in State of M.P. Vs. Anand Yadav & Others, Criminal Case No. 8025 of 2011 pending in the Court of Shri Rakesh Bansal, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior which was registered on the basis of challan filed by Mahila Thana, Gwalior. The criminal case was initiated on the basis of FIR registered at Crime No. 59 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 506/34 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Verification report in pursuant to order dated 23.04.2014 has been submitted by the Principal Registrar of this Court. 4. The petitioners and non-petitioner No. 2 have been identified and the Principal Registrar is satisfied that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force. 5. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Apex Court has observed as under:- A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Ss. 482 and 320--Inherent powers under S. 482--Exercise of, in relation to matrimonial disputes--Scope--Non-compoundable offences (offences under Ss. 498A and 406 IPC in this case)--Quashing of criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint by High Court in respect of--Held, permissible since S. 320 does not limit or affect the powers under S. 482--Constitution of India--Articles 226 and 136 --Interference in criminal matters--Quashing of criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint--Permissibility of, where non-compoundable offences involved. C. Family Law--Matrimonial disputes/offences--Duty of court--Held, is to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial dispute. 6. According to guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court can invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. Paragraph 14 of the judgment of B.S. Joshi (supra) reads as under:- 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Keeping in view the same, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this petition is allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners i.e. State of M.P. Vs. Anand Yadav & Others, Criminal Case No. 8025 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 506/34 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shri Rakesh Bansal is dropped. 9. Certified copy as per rules.