ORDER : Sri K. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel files vakalath for respondent No.2 – wife. 2. Sri Naeem son of Shahabuddin Sutar, petitioner No.1 herein and Smt. Parveen Jamadar, second respondent herein are present before the court. Other petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No.1. 3. The petitioners have sought for quashing of a criminal case in FIR No.203/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station on the file of the respondent No.1 Police for the offence punishable under sections 506, 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is in-turn pending on the file of the X Addl. CMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru City. 4. The first petitioner and the second respondent have filed a joint memo stating that, the matter has been amicably settled between themselves and they have produced the Memorandum of Settlement recorded u/s.89 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, filed in C.Misc.No.139/2017 before the Court of the I MMTC, Bengaluru. As per paragraph 6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement, both the parties have categorically accepted to help themselves and to co-operate for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.203/2017 on the file of the Rakmamurthynagar Police. 5. It is seen that perhaps after filing of a criminal case, some time later they have realized their mistake and they have decided to live together. Therefore, in order to facilitate them to lead happy life, this criminal case should not come in their way. 6. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein, the Hon'ble 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. – 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 while working in their capacity as 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.” 7. The factual matrix of this case also falls within the categories as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings as prayed for. Hence, the Joint Memo and the Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties, entered into between them, it is just and necessary to quash the proceedings. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The Petition is allowed. The Joint Memo and the Memorandum of Settlement filed by the first petitioner and second respondent is hereby accepted. Consequently, all further proceedings in Crime No.203/2017 on the file of the respondent No.1 Police, which is pending on the file of the X ACMM, Mayo hall Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under sections 506, 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.