JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 16.8.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khandar, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 95/2016 whereby the said court accepted the compromise qua offences under Sections 406 and 323 IPC but rejected the same for offence under Section 498A IPC. 2. In the present case, quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise. 3. Sunita, respondent No. 2 is present in the court. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Azad Ahmed. Mr. Hanuman Singh Jat petitioner is also present in the court and he has been identified by his counsel Mr. Dinesh Yadav. 4. Sunita, respondent No. 2 has stated that on 24.4.2012 she was married with petitioner as per Hindu customs and rites. It is submitted that due to difference of opinion, she was compelled to lodge the impugned FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that due to intervention of respectables, elders of the family and common relations, the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved. 6. Sunita, respondent No. 2 has stated that the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- Lakhs towards Stridhan, expenses on marriage, permanent alimony and cost of litigation etc. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have drawn attention of this Court to the compromise Annexure-1 annexed with the present petition. 8. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that they shall remain bound by compromise Annexure-1 affected between the parties. 9. Sunita, respondent No. 2 has submitted that out of Rs. 3,50,000/-, agreed to be paid by petitioner, she has already received Rs. 1,75,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 1,75,000/-, shall be paid to her at the time of grant of decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. It is submitted that on 26.2.2019 the divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act is coming up for final motion before the Family Court, Sawai Madhopur. 10. Sunita, complainant/respondent No. 2 has prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed as she no longer intends to pursue the same. 11. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied upon B.S. Joshi & Ors. 10. Sunita, complainant/respondent No. 2 has prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed as she no longer intends to pursue the same. 11. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied upon B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028 , to contend that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in furtherance of interest of justice in matrimonial dispute may bring families at peace by quashing FIR. 12. On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties, in view of the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), relied by the parties, the present petition is accepted and impugned FIR along with all its subsequent proceedings is quashed.