ORDER : Anil Kumar Shukla, J. 1. The Petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa registered as Criminal Case No. 746 of 2012. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 2, Smt. Santoshi against the Petitioners in Mahila Thana, Bilaspur and on the basis of the report of the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa registered Crime No. 488 of 2012 against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and filed charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa on 25.12.2012. Now, Respondent No.2/Complainant Smt. Santoshi and the Petitioners have entered into a compromise and have jointly filed an application (I.A. No. 1 of 2017) without any fear or pressure for compromise and Smt. Santoshi does not want any action against the Petitioners. The Trial Court has not decided the application pending before it for compromise between the parties till date. 3. In support of I.A. No. 1 of 2017 filed under Section 320 (2)/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements of Smt. Santoshi, wife of Dwarika Kurre, Dwarika Kurre, son of Dashrath Lal Kurre, Dashrath Lal Kurre, son of Mahadev Kurre and Brihaspati Bai, wife of Dashrath Lal Kurre have been recorded before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court today in which it has been stated that a compromise has been arrived at between Respondent No. 2, Smt. Santoshi and the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2, Smt. Santoshi has also stated therein that she is peacefully residing with her husband Dwarika Kurre, mother-in-law Brihaspati, father-in-law Dashrath Lal Kurre, brother-in-law Har Prasad Kurre and sister-in-law Seema Bai alias Har Bai at Village Sihali, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa and she does not want any action against the Petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that although the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, but in the light of the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the proceedings before the Court below can be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that although the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, but in the light of the dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the proceedings before the Court below can be quashed. Learned Counsel placing reliance upon the judgment in B.S. Joshi case (supra) submits that though in accordance with the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable in nature yet the criminal proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under this section can be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below: “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 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 relative 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. 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.” 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also placed reliance on Rajiv Saxena v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 627 and submitted that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Trial Court can be quashed on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. 6. 6. Thus, according to the above cited decisions of the Apex Court, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Apex Court and the fact that Complainant Smt. Santoshi and the Petitioners have amicably settled their disputes without pressure or fear, it would be in the interests of justice to allow I.A. No. 1 of 2017 filed under Section 320(2)/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the instant criminal miscellaneous petition and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir–Champa registered as Criminal Case No.746 of 2012. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2017 filed under Section 320 (2)/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the instant criminal miscellaneous petition are allowed and the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir–Champa are quashed. The Petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 498-A and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.