JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Vide this petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., quashing is sought of the complaint under Sections 403, 405, 418, 420, 120-B RPC titled 'Ashok Kumar Raina & anr. v. Rohit Mattoo & ors.' as also proceedings in respect thereto pending in the Court of the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. 2. Yesterday, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a compromise had been arrived at between petitioner No. 1 and the respondents and that in pursuance thereto, the respondents did not wish to pursue the criminal complaint any further and had no objection if the criminal complaint and proceedings in respect thereto were quashed. 3. Today, an application has been filed by respondent No. 1 duly supported with an affidavit along with special power of attorney executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1. Perusal of the affidavit reveals of the respondents have settled the dispute inter se the parties and do not wish to press the complaint/proceedings in respect thereto any further and that in view thereof, have no objection if the complaint filed by them was dismissed. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Raina-respondent No. 1 is present in Court. He is also the attorney of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1, who is present in Court, has been identified by learned counsel for the petitioners. Statement of respondent No. 1 along with application and affidavit dated 23.08.2016 are taken on record. On query, he states that the application along with affidavit dated 23.08.2016 has been filed by him in Court out of his and his daughter's own free will and that neither he nor his daughter were interested in prosecuting the complaint filed by them against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and the proceedings in respect thereto any further and that in the circumstances, they had no objection if the complaint filed against petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 was dismissed. 5. In Ankush Gupta (Dr.) & ors. v. State & ors. reported as 2016 (1) JKJ 367 (HC) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors v. Babita Raghuvanshi & anr. {Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6462 of 2012)} and B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and anr. reported as (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the FIR/criminal proceedings were quashed in view of the parties having settled their matrimonial disputes. {Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6462 of 2012)} and B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and anr. reported as (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the FIR/criminal proceedings were quashed in view of the parties having settled their matrimonial disputes. Relevant extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & ors. v. State of Haryana & anr. reported as (2003) 4 SCC 675 is reproduced under:-- "The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings. The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in a catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes. The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. When such matters are resolved either by the wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the first information report or complaint filed by the wife under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint." In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides. The answer clearly has to be in "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 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 counseled 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. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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 hyper technical view would be counter productive 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. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned." 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also respondent No. 1 who is present in Court besides perused the compromise (Annexure-A) attached along with MP No. 01/2016 as also MP No. 02/2016 and the affidavit in support thereto. 7. In view of the position as noted above i.e. of petitioners and respondent No. 1 having decided to part company amicably so as to move on in life and not get bogged down in unending litigation so as to rob them of their youth as also of chances of ultimate conviction in the aforementioned proceedings being bleak, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. Rather non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings would prevent the parties from settling down in life. Rather non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings would prevent the parties from settling down in life. Accordingly, in view of Compromise (Annexure-A) dated 23.08.2016 affidavit of respondent No. 1 as well as statement of respondent No. 1 and in view of his daughter-respondent No. 2 having received the entire amount agreed to be paid by petitioner No. 1 and in the circumstances, the respondents not wanting to pursue the complaint/proceedings in order to have peace of mind and to settle down in life and in the circumstances, having no objection to the aforesaid complaint and all connected proceedings in respect thereto being quashed, criminal complaint under Sections 403, 405, 418, 420 & 120-B RPC titled as Ashok Kumar Raina & another v. Rohit Matto & others and all connected proceedings in respect thereto before the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu are quashed. 8. Petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and all connected MPs disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Disposed off