ORDER : 1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for 2. Sri. N. Hari Prasad, learned Advocate files Respondent No.1State. vakalath for Respondent No.2. 3. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are present before the court. 4. Both the parties have filed application for recording compromise and for quashing of the proceedings. Petitioner No.1 in view of the compromise between the parties in MC No.4655/2014 made payment of some amount to the 2nd respondent before the 5th MMTC, Bengaluru, and the same was acknowledged by Respondent No.2. RespondentNo.2 submits before the court that she has no objection to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.18071/2015 registered by the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As could be seen from the above circumstances, it is a matrimonial dispute between parties, which gave rise to filing of complaint by the 2nd respondent/wife against the 1st respondent/husband and his family members before the Police in Crime No. 38/2015 for the above said offences. 5. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the parties have entered into compromise. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:. “Held 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. …………. Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled the dispute – Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. …………. Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled the dispute – Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing–Offences arising from commercial financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings – High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case it put to an end. If such questions are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings…” 6. This is one such case, which falls under the category of the cases as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this case, the complaint lodged by the wife is arising out of matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, and the same has been resolved between themselves. In order to enable the parties to live happily in future, the court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the proceedings in respect of the non-compoundable offences also. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as the factual aspects falls within the guidelines laid down in the above said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties, before this court. 7. In the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as the factual aspects falls within the guidelines laid down in the above said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties, before this court. 7. In the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in C.C. No.18071/2015 filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, pending on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned. 8. In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.