JUDGMENT : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This application is by husband of non-applicant no.2 and his relatives for quashing of charge-sheet which is registered as Criminal Case R.C.C. No.74 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anjangaon Surji. During pendency of present application, matter was referred for mediation and it came to be successfully settled and in compliance to it, applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 have placed Terms of Settlement on record. On the earlier date, since it was noted that settlement was arrived at between applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 as referred in the Terms of Settlement and as we did not find reference of applicant nos. 2 to 6 therein, non-applicant no.2 on that day filed additional affidavit having her no objection for quashing of F.I.R and charge-sheet filed against applicant nos. 2 to 6 also, as the issue between applicant no.1 and Complainant/non-applicant no.2 has been amicably settled. 3. From the application, it is found that applicant no.1 was married to non-applicant no.2 on 15.11.2015 as per Mohammedan rights and customs and after residing in her matrimonial home for a span of one month, non-applicant no.2 was required to go to Anjangaon Surji, where she was in teaching profession in a Zilla Parishad School. During the month of August, 2016, there was some matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and his wife/non-applicant no.2 on the issue of her not staying with applicant no.1 at Majalgaon, as agreed prior to marriage and on this count, they started residing separately. During this period, non-applicant no.2 filed Complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also lodged F.I.R. against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, out of which present application arises; while applicant no.1 filed application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 4. During this period, non-applicant no.2 filed Complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also lodged F.I.R. against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, out of which present application arises; while applicant no.1 filed application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 4. As stated earlier, in the mediation process, all the disputes between the parties came to be settled, which are more elaborately stated in the Terms of Settlement placed on record, dt.6.12.2018, duly signed by applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 along with their respective Counsels in presence of Mediator and who were also present in the Court and had accepted contents of said agreement and as from the additional affidavit of non-applicant no.2, dt.14.12.2018, she has given her no objection for quashing of charge-sheet filed in Crime No.491 of 2016 registered against the applicants on the basis of her report, application is liable to be allowed. 5. In the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if parties have settled the disputes and no element of public loss is involved, they can be permitted to compound the offence. In the application in hand, from the Terms of Compromise as well as affidavit of non-applicant no.2, it is found that all the issues between them are settled and in fact, non-applicant no.2 has given her no objection to put an end to the criminal proceedings. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and Others .vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that where parties have settled their matrimonial dispute, this Court should exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and give an end to the criminal proceedings. 6. In the above circumstances, we find that continuation of criminal proceedings would unnecessarily create problem in maintaining harmony in the family life of applicants as well as non-applicant no.2. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the application. 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and added prayer clause (AA) of the application. No order as to costs.