ORDER : 1. Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 02 of 2016 has been filed by the wife of Dr. Anshuman Kumar, who is the petitioner in Cr.M.P No. 324 of 2018 and Cr.M.P No. 917 of 2016, seeking transfer of Sadar P.S Case No. 695 of 2014 corresponding to G.R Case No. 2719 of 2014 which has been registered for the offences punishable under section 342/323/448/427/379/504/506/ 34 IPC to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jamshedpur or any other nearby court. 2. Sadar P.S Case No. 695 of 2014 has been instituted on the basis of the written report of Dr. Anshuman Kumar alleging commission of the aforesaid offences. 3. Cr.M.P No. 917 of 2016 has been filed by Dr. Anshuman Kumar seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C/1 Case No. 1843 of 2015 including the order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2016 by which cognizance of the offence under section 498A IPC and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken. This complaint case has been filed by his wife. 4. Cr.M.P No. 324 of 2018 has also been filed by the petitioner-Dr. Anshuman Kumar seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C/1 2988/2014 which has been lodged for offences under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This complaint case has also been instituted by his wife. 5. Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2016 has been filed by the wife of Dr. Anshuman Kumar challenging the order dated 27.07.2016 by which her application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C in Sadar P.S Case No. 695 of 2014 corresponding to G.R Case No. 2719 of 2014 has been declined. 6. Proceeding in Cr.M.P No. 917 of 2016 would indicate that as long back as on 04.04.2017, this Court was informed that the parties are ready to give one last shot at reconciliation. 7. Order dated 11.04.2017 indicates that some sort of compromise was arrived at between the parties and therefore for ascertaining the final settlement the matter was listed in the Chamber of the Hon’ble Judge. 8. During pendency of these petitions, it is stated that an amount of Rs.1,86,000/- was paid to Mrs. Madhubala @ Madhubala Kumar in compliance of the order passed in C/1 2988/2014. Thereafter, on 07.01.2019 the following order was passed by this Court: “Let name of Mr. 8. During pendency of these petitions, it is stated that an amount of Rs.1,86,000/- was paid to Mrs. Madhubala @ Madhubala Kumar in compliance of the order passed in C/1 2988/2014. Thereafter, on 07.01.2019 the following order was passed by this Court: “Let name of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2-husband appear in the cause-list. 2. Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner-wife, who has preferred Transfer Petition (Cr.) No. 2 of 2016 and Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner-husband, who has filed Cr. M. P. No. 917 of 2016 seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the complaint case being C/1 Case No. 1843 of 2015. 3. The learned counsels appearing for both the parties submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the complainant-wife now does not intend to prosecute the matter further. Both the learned counsels have referred to decision in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of 2016, on instructions, states that the balance amount which the petitioner is required to pay to his wife in terms of the compromise shall be paid to her on 15.01.2019. 5. Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Transfer Petition (Cr.) No. 2 of 2016 states that against the order taking cognizance against the petitioner in Sadar P.S. Case No. 695 of 2014, Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2016 has been filed which is pending in this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. M. P. No. 917 of 2016 submits that in terms of the compromise the petitioner also does not intend to prosecute criminal case filed against his wife. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, the learned counsel submits that he appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 in the Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2016. 8. Post these matters alongwith Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2016 on 15.01.2019 under the heading “For Final Disposal”.” 9. However, on 15.01.2019 when a statement was made on behalf of Dr. Anshuman Kumar that he would pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the opposite party no. 2-wife only after divorce through mutual consent is granted to him, the matter was adjourned for 29.01.2019. However, on 15.01.2019 when a statement was made on behalf of Dr. Anshuman Kumar that he would pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the opposite party no. 2-wife only after divorce through mutual consent is granted to him, the matter was adjourned for 29.01.2019. On that day, this Court recording its doubt referred the matter to a trained-Mediator. 10. A report on mediation has been received in the Registry, a copy of which has been placed on record. It is stated that the Mediator, JHALSA has sent a report stating that the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably and terms and conditions of settlement have been reduced in the settlement agreement. 11. A copy of the settlement agreement is annexed with the letter dated 02.02.2019 from the Mediator, JHALSA. 12. Mrs. Jashodhara Tripathy, the learned counsel for Mrs. Madhubala @ Madhubala Kumar states that she has received the balance payment and now the parties would prosecute the matter before the Family Court, where an application under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed. 13. In a long line of judgments including the one in “B.S Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Supreme Court has held that even the non-compoundable cases can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or section 482 Cr.P.C. Such powers can be exercised by the High Court, more particularly, in the cases arising out of matrimonial disputes. It has been observed that if the parties have settled their dispute and the allegations in the complaint are not so well-founded and it appears to the Court that further continuance of the criminal proceeding would be detrimental to the peace and harmony in the family or the matrimonial life of the parties, the criminal prosecution launched at the instance of one of the parties can be quashed by the High Court. 14. Accordingly, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and the order by which discharge petition filed by any of the parties has been declined stand quashed. 15. Parties shall religiously honour the settlement arrived at between them. 16. In the result, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 02 of 2016 is rendered infructuous. 15. Parties shall religiously honour the settlement arrived at between them. 16. In the result, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 02 of 2016 is rendered infructuous. Cr.M.P No. 324 of 2018, Cr.M.P No. 917 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 1439 of 2016 stand allowed. 17. All I.As stand disposed of.