JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. By filing the joint petition under Section 482 of CrPC, Gopal Debnath, the petitioner of Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 82 of 2009 and his wife Smt. Manju Debnath, the informant-victim of the criminal proceedings, prayed for quashing the FIR of Baikhora P.S. Case No. 40 of 2007 registered under Section 498A of IPC which was subsequently numbered as case No. G.R.160 of 2007 in the court of SDM, Belonia and also prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground that the petitioners, being the husband and wife have settled their matrimonial discord and arrived at a compromise and are living peacefully as husband and wife, and to maintain their matrimonial life they like to end the criminal proceedings. 2. Heard learned amicus curiae, Ms. M. Choudhury for the petitioners and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the respondent. 3. Smt. Manju Debnath is the wife of accused Gopal Debnath. She lodged the FIR on 12.05.2007 before O/C Baikhora P.S. alleging exercise of cruelty by her husband, the accused Gopal Debnath and the criminal case was set in motion. 4. After investigation police submitted charge sheet and the trial was taken up by learned SDJM after framing of charge against the accused Gopal Debnath for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. At the conclusion of trial learned SDJM found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 498A and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further SI for six months. 5. The accused Gopal Debnath preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 13(2) of 2009 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia and by judgment dated 17.07.2009 learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned SDJM. 6. Aggrieved, the convict accused Gopal Debnath filed the connected revisional application pending before us. 7. It is submitted by affidavit that the matrimonial discord which resulted in the criminal proceedings has now been settled between the husband and wife and they are living peacefully in the matrimonial home. Therefore, they prayed for quashing the proceedings. 8. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 considered the issue. Therefore, they prayed for quashing the proceedings. 8. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 considered the issue. A criminal proceeding under Section 498A is not compoundable as per Section 320 of CrPC. The Apex Court has held that while the ultimate goal of the matrimonial disputes is to arrive at a settlement between the husband and wife and to maintain the matrimonial life, the criminal proceedings if stand in the way, the High Court may in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC for genuine and bona-fide reasons is empowered to quash the proceedings where the parties arrived at a settlement. The petitioners appeared before the court and submitted that they have compromised the difference and now living together as husband and wife. 9. Learned P.P. submitted that to restore the matrimonial life which was disturbed by the criminal proceedings between the accused and his wife i.e. the victim lady, if they have arrived at a compromise that may be accepted and criminal proceeding may be quashed. 10. The Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 observed thus: “13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A 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 hypertechnical 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 Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 11. Since in this case the FIR was registered only for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and punishment was also recorded under that section, I think we must apply ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra). 12. In view of the discussions made above, the FIR of G.R. Case No. 160 of 2007 and the consequent criminal proceedings are quashed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned SDJM in case No. G.R. No. 160 of 2007 which was affirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 13(2) of 2009 are accordingly quashed. 13. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. 14. A copy of the judgment may be given to learned amicus curiae, Ms. Choudhury. 15. Since Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel was appointed by the Court as amicus curiae by order dated 25.01.2016, she be paid a consolidated fees of Rs. 5,000/- for conducting the criminal proceedings.