ORDER : Sri Manjunath.C, learned counsel files vakalath for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, along with their counsels are present before the Court. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and respondent No.2 is the wife and they have filed a Joint Memo before this court stating that they have compromised the matter and they have resolved their entire dispute between them in MC No.3090/2015. The presence of petitioner Nos.2 to 11 is dispensed with. Respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the entire proceedings in FIR dated 10.7.2015 registered in Crime No.56/2015 on the file of the Halasoor gate Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 506 of IPC. 3. The record discloses lodging of the complaint against the husband petitioner No.1 by the second respondent wife arises out of a family dispute between themselves. 4. In this context, it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], wherein the Apex Court has held thus: “Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. ………….” 5. It is also worth to note here the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others –vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another reported in [ (2013) 4 SCC 58 ], wherein the Apex Court, particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has laid down a law that the court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to matrimonial disputes, which reads as follows :- ‘The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC are wide and unfettered. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. Consequently, 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, it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.PC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of IR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. The Institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 Cr.PC enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables the Supreme Court to pass such orders. In the present case, the appellants (the husband and his relatives, accused under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the criminal proceedings. In the present case, the appellants (the husband and his relatives, accused under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) had not sought compounding of the offences. They had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in question by accepting the settlement arrived at by the parties concerned.” As the present case also falls under the category of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings so far as the Crime is concerned. The parties who are present before the court filed their respective affidavits stating that they have compromised the matter between themselves. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following order: The Petition is allowed. Joint Memo filed by the parties is hereby accepted and all further proceedings in Crime No.56/2015 for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 505 read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of the Halasoor gate Police Station, which is pending on the file of V Addl. CMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City are hereby quashed.