JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.2816 of 2015 (re-numbered as 9614 of 2015) (Dr.Nagendra Prasad vs. Ashish Shukla and others) under sections 498A, 504, 506, 109 I.P.C. & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2. Marriage of the applicant No.1 was solemnized on 20.06.2014 with the opposite party no.2 but unfortunately they could not lead their life with peace and happiness. Ultimately on 14.07.2015, opposite party no.3, who is father of opposite party no.2 filed criminal complaint making several allegations of harassment and torture of opposite party no.2 against the applicants. The learned magistrate after recording the statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses namely Dr.Niharika Dube as P.W.1 and Smt.Sheela Dube as P.W.-2, summoned the applicants to face trial vide impugned order dated 11.09.2015. All the allegations levelled in the impugned complaint dated 14.07.2015 have been denied by the applicants by contending that opposite party no.2 is a recalcitrant lady. Since she wanted to live separately, therefore, false allegation of harassment etc. have been levelled by her and her family members. 4. By order dated 07.12.2015 of this Court, this matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court giving one opportunity to settle their frayed and acrimonious relation and to put interminable litigations an end but mediation between the parties at that time had failed. 5. On account of new development in the matter, on 18.01.2019 following order was passed by this Court:- “Heard Mrs. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State. Record reveals that this case has checkered history of litigation. 5. On account of new development in the matter, on 18.01.2019 following order was passed by this Court:- “Heard Mrs. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State. Record reveals that this case has checkered history of litigation. Earlier vide order dated 7.12.2015 of this Court, this matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad so that matter between the parties may be settled amicably but it was reported by the Mediation Centre on 12.2.2016 to this Court that the mediation between the parties failed. Thereafter, during pendency of this application on several times statements were made on behalf of the parties that negotiation between the parties are going on and there is still chance of compromise between the parties. This Court has recorded the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in the order dated 12.5.2017, 23.5.2017, 10.7.2017, 31.7.2017 and 5.12.2017. Today, the case is listed under the heading of final hearing/disposal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that he has filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 4.12.2018 bringing on record the photocopy of the order dated 25.7.2018 passed by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse United States of America in Case No. HG16822723 Ashish Shukla Vs. Nagendra Pradad Dubey and anothers. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 placing reliance on the aforesaid order dated 25.7.2018 submitted that applicant no.1 has filed civil case no. HG16822723 Ashish Shukla Vs. Nagendra Pradad Dubey and anothers before the Superior Court of California County of Alameda, United States of America against opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The said case filed by the applicant no.1 has been dismissed vide order dated 25.7.2018 without prejudice subject to condition that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 (who are wife and father-in-law of the applicant no.1) shall get their cases dismissed pending in India within 270 days from the date of order i.e. prior to 25.4.2019. 2 and 3. The said case filed by the applicant no.1 has been dismissed vide order dated 25.7.2018 without prejudice subject to condition that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 (who are wife and father-in-law of the applicant no.1) shall get their cases dismissed pending in India within 270 days from the date of order i.e. prior to 25.4.2019. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length, the dispute arose between the parties regarding number of cases pending against each other, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that she has knowledge of only one case pending against the applicants in India i.e. complaint case no. 9614 of 2015 (Dr. Nagendra Prasad Dubey Vs. Ashish Shukla and others), under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 109 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhelpur, District Varanasi pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. Against the said proceedings, the present application has been filed on behalf of the applicants who are seven in number before this Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that except this case she is not aware about any other case filed filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 or pending against the applicants. It is next submitted that applicants are also not aware that whether any other case except civil case no. HG16822723 has been filed in California by the applicant no.1 or not. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submitted at the Bar that so far as his knowledge is concerned, only one case being complaint case no. 9614 of 2015, arising out of which, present application has been filed by the applicants is pending against the applicants, in which opposite party no.3 has already moved an application dated 26.10.2018 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi to withdraw his complaint against the applicants. Copy of the application dated 26.10.2018 appended as Annexure no.2 with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 4.12.2018. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and apprehension in their mind, this Court feel that since the contention as raised on behalf of the parties are not on record, therefore, same are required to be brought on record by the parties concerned through an affidavit so that in future they may not deny their stand anywhere else. In view of above, following directions are given to the parties concerned:- 1. Applicants shall file an affidavit clearly disclosing that whether any case other than case no. HG16822723 Ashish Shukla Vs. Nagendra Prasad Dubey has been filed by the applicant no.1 against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and their family members or not. In case, any case has been filed by the applicants no.1 in California or in India against the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and their family members, detail and present status of the same shall be disclosed in the affidavit. 2. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 shall also file an affidavit bring on record the detail of the cases filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 against the applicants in India as well as in California giving all the details and present status of such cases. 3. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 shall also disclose the fact that in all the pending cases filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 against the applicants, they have moved an application to withdraw the criminal proceedings, etc. against the applicants. The aforesaid exercise shall be done by the parties concerned within two weeks positively. List this case on 6.2.2019 in top ten cases. Learned counsel for the parties are also directed that before the date fixed in this matter, they will exchange their affidavits between each other.” 6. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2019, on behalf of the applicants Ashish Shukla, husband, Smt.Urmila Shukla, mother-in-law, Sheela @ Shilu, unmarried sister-in-law, Smt.Kishori Sharma, married sister-in-law, Ravindra Mohan Sharma, brother-in-law, Arun Sharma, son of applicant no.4 Smt.Kishori Sharma and Dr. Ankita Sharma, daughter of applicant no.4 Smt.Kishori Sharma, a supplementary affidavit dated 1st February, 2019 sweared by Smt.Kishori Sharma (applicant no.4) has been filed disclosing the detail of the cases filed by the applicant no.1 against his wife/opposite party no.2 (Dr.Niharika Dube) in California which are as under:- (I) Case No.HF15771757-Ashish Shukla vs. Niharika Shukla-For dissolution of marriage before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda; This case has been finally disposed off by dissolution of marriage of applicant No.1 and opposite party no.2 and alimony as directed has been paid to her. (II) Case No.HG 16822723-Shukla vs. Dubey-A personal injury case filed by the Applicant No.1 before the Superior Court of California, Country of Alameda, Rene C.Davidson Alameda Country Courhouse. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that Case No.HF15771757 Ashish Shukla vs. Niharika Shukla has been finally decided by judgment and order dated 28.06.2016 appended as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit. Case No.HG16822723 Shukla vs. Dubey has also been finally decided by judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 of Superior Court of California, Country of Alameda, Rene C.Davidson Alameda Country Courthouse, appended as Annexure No.2 to the supplementary affidavit. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants at Bar that except the above cases neither any case has been filed from the side of the applicants nor is pending against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 9. In compliance of order dated 18.01.2019 of this Court, on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 also a supplementary counter affidavit dated 31.01.2019 sweared by Dr.Nagendra Prasad Dubey (opposite party no.3) has been filed disclosing the detail of cases filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 against the applicants, which are as under:- (I) Complaint Case No.2816 of 2015, renumbered as 961472015 (Dr.Nagendra Prasad vs. Ashish Shukla and others) under Section 498-A, 504, 506, 109 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhulupur, District Varanasi (filed by opposite party no.3). (II) Complaint Case No.1862 of 2016 (Dr.Niharika Dubey vs. Ashish Shukla and others) under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (filed by opposite party no.2). (III) Case No.852 of 2015 (Dr. Niharika Dubey vs. Ashish Shukla) under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 that out of the aforesaid three cases, two cases have been finally decided, details of the same are as follows:- (I) Complaint Case No.1862 of 2016 has been finally decided by order dated 12.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Varanasi (appended as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.01.2019). (II) Another case No.852 of 2015 has also been finally decided vide order dated 27th October, 2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, copy whereof appended as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 31.01.2019. 11. (II) Another case No.852 of 2015 has also been finally decided vide order dated 27th October, 2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, copy whereof appended as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 31.01.2019. 11. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that now only one case being Complaint Case No.2816 of 2015 filed by the opposite party no.3 Dr. Nagendra Prasad Dube (father-in-law of the applicant No.1) is pending against the applicant regarding which present application has been filed before this Court. It is also submitted that accept the present case, no case is pending against the applicants with regard to matrimonial dispute between the parties. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 that in Case No.HG16822723 Shukla vs. Dubey filed by the applicant No.1, following order has been passed on 25.07.2018 by the superior court of California. The extract of said order dated 25.07.2018 is reproduced here-in-below:- “The Court has ordered the following at the conclusion of a judicially supervised Case Management Conference. At the request of the parties, the court dismisses this case without prejudice and retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement of the parties and to reinstate the case if the pending case in India is not dismissed without 270 days, through and including April 25, 2019. If the pending case in India is not dismissed within said 270 days period, then either party may file an application to reinstate this case. Alameda County Superior Court Case No. HG16822723. If the pending case is dismissed within said 270 day period, then earlier party may file an application to make the dismissal of Alameda Country Superior Court Case No.HG16822723 a dismissal with prejudice. All statutes of limitation are tolled pending the resolution of the India case. It is hereby ordered that : Case dismissed by Court without Prejduce-pursuant to Court Order, court retains jurisdiction. Notices will be mailed.:” 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. All statutes of limitation are tolled pending the resolution of the India case. It is hereby ordered that : Case dismissed by Court without Prejduce-pursuant to Court Order, court retains jurisdiction. Notices will be mailed.:” 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 that in view of above order dated 25.07.2018, opposite party no.3 has moved application dated 26.07.2018 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.9614 of 2015 (Dr.Nagendra Prasad Dubey vs. Ashish Shukla and others) praying therein to dismiss the complaint case No.9614 of 2015, permitting the complainant to withdraw his complaint. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has also stated at Bar before this Court that, in case, the proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.9614 of 2015 (Dr.Nagendra Prasad Dubey vs. Ashish Shukla) under sections 498A, 504, 506 & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, district Varanasi, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi is quashed by this Court, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 will have no grievance against the applicants, as the dispute between the parties concerned have been amicably settled. Both the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties have also given undertaking on behalf of their clients before this Court that in future also they will not raise any allegation against each other in respect of present matrimonial dispute. 14. The Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others V. Sambhaji-rao Chandrojirao Angre and others (1988) 1 SCC 692 held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court, may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. 15. The observation of the Apex Court in G. V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. 15. The observation of the Apex Court in G. V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about re-oproachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and it that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts. 16. Keeping in mind the sage advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations and reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read: "In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. The lines read: "In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides." 17. In B.S. Joshi's case it has also been observed in paragraph 8, that in an appropriate case for securing the ends of justice, the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or even in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in paragraph no.14 it has further observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive 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 setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 18. The Apex Court in another decision in case of Smt Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma and others AIR 2004 SC 261 , where similar to the present case, the dispute including the criminal and divorce litigation between the sparring spouses had been decided on the basis of a compromise and where again the husband had paid Rs. 6 lakhs to his wife for the settlement, the apex Court had quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A and 406 IPC before the CJM, rendering the application under section 482 Cr.P.C before the Allahabad High Court in-fructuous. It had also granted the decree of divorce, rendering the divorce suit pending before the ADJ at Delhi in-fructuous, In that case in paragraph 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed: "7. It had also granted the decree of divorce, rendering the divorce suit pending before the ADJ at Delhi in-fructuous, In that case in paragraph 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed: "7. Having perused the records placed before us we are satisfied that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we allow the application for divorce by mutual consent filed before us under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and declare that the marriage solemnized between the consenting parties on 13th June, 2001 at Delhi is hereby dissolved, and they are granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent." 19. In view of above, all other and further proceeding of Complaint Case No.2816 of 2015 (re-numbered as 9614 of 2015) (Dr. Nagendra Prasad vs. Ashish Shukla and others), under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 109 IPC & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, is hereby quashed. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.No.2816 of 2015 is allowed in terms of settlement made between the parties, as mentioned above. 20. Office shall communicate this order to the court concerned within two weeks.