ORDER : The petitioners and their counsel, respondent No.2 and her counsel are present before the court. 2. Heard the parties and the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an application in IA No.1/2017 to implead one Dr. Mohammed Hasheer son of Mohammed Basheer, as petitioner No.6, for which the learned counsel for the second respondent has no objection. The proposed petitioner No.6 is none other than the husband of the second respondent. Therefore, the said application deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, IA No.11/2017 is allowed and the proposed applicant is impleaded as petitioner No.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to carry out the amendment in the petition in the course of the day. 4. Petitioner No.6 is also present before the court. There is no dispute that petitioner No.6 and second respondent are husband and wife and petitioners 1 to 5 are the relatives of petitioner No.6. The dispute between the husband and wife led to filing of a complaint by the second respondent against all the petitioners, which came to be registered in Crime No.98/2016 for the offence punishable under section 498A read with Section 149 of IPC, which is sought to be quashed. 5. In this regard, the petitioner No.6 and respondent No.2 have filed a Joint Memo stating that they have compromised the matter between themselves and they have resolved their entire matrimonial dispute between themselves and that the second respondent has no objection to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.98/2016. In support of the said Joint Memo, the second respondent has also filed an affidavit in support of the contention taken up in the Joint Memo. 6. At this stage, it is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. In support of the said Joint Memo, the second respondent has also filed an affidavit in support of the contention taken up in the Joint Memo. 6. At this stage, it is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered 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. ………….” 7. 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. 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. The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in question by accepting the settlement arrived at by the parties concerned.” 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the category as mentioned in the Hon'ble Apex Court’s decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings. 9. Keeping in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court has applied its mind to the factual matrix of this case and found that the dispute is basically a private and personal in nature, and the parties have resolved their entire conflict between themselves. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings. 9. Keeping in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this court has applied its mind to the factual matrix of this case and found that the dispute is basically a private and personal in nature, and the parties have resolved their entire conflict between themselves. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the FIR dated 4.4.2016 in Crime No.98/2016 registered by the Bajpe Police, pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru City, Mangaluru, for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.