ORDER : Dr. A.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard Miss Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2-wife and the learned Additional Standing Counsel 2. Inherent jurisdiction of this court is sought to quash the order taking cognizance of the offence under section 498(A)/406 read with Section 34 of IPC and under seetion-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by learned S.D.J.M., Angul in G.R. Case No. 1656 of 2014 on the ground of marital settlement. 3. Opposite party No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 3. petitioner No. 1 and 2 are parents of petitioner No. 3. The marriage between petitioner No. 3 and opposite party No. 2-wife was solemnized on 10.7.2011 and she was blessed with a male child. Dissention arose and wife-opposite party No. 2 filed complaint in 1CC No. 191 of 2014 which was forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. resulting registration of G.R. Case No. 1656 of 2014 corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No. 657 of 2014. On receipt of Police Report the SDJM took cognizance of offence under section 498(A)/406 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and found sufficient ground to proceed against four accused persons including the present three petitioners. 3.a. Husband(O.P.-3) filed proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Judge, Family Court Dhenkanal in C.P. No. 106 of 2014. The wife filed an application for dissolution of marriage in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Angul vide MAT Case No. 144 of 2016. Mediation was taken up in the matrimonial transfer Case No. 197 of 2016 in the High Court. 3.b. Basing upon the mediation report the transfer petitioner was disposed of on 16.3.2017. The copy of Mediation Report vide Annexure-5 reveals that both parties agreed to file divorce proceeding and to take steps for disposal of the cases. 4. Learned advocate for opposite party No. 2 - wife does not dispute such settlement between the parties and raises no objection. Learned Advocate for petitioners submits that in view of such settlement the proceeding needs to be quashed. Learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the factum of settlement. 5. In the decision reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vrs. The State of Gujarat and Anr. Learned Advocate for petitioners submits that in view of such settlement the proceeding needs to be quashed. Learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the factum of settlement. 5. In the decision reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vrs. The State of Gujarat and Anr. Hon'ble Apex Court has prescribed the principles to quash the proceeding in case of settlement between the parties in the matrimonial dispute. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Kumar Sharma 6 Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 155 of 2019) vide order dtd. 21.10.2019 reiterated as follows:- "The High Court despite this arrangement arrived at between the parties, however, declined to quash the proceedings. In our opinion, the High Court should have taken note of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their differences and consciously chose to unconditionally drop all proceedings related to marriage inter se including the criminal action initiated by the complainant-respondent No. 2." 6. Regards being had to the above legal position and factum of settlement on marital dispute between the parties, the continuance of proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, order dated 15.5.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 1656 of 2014 (Corresponding to Angul P.S. Case No. 657 of 2014) passed by the leaned S.D.J.M., Angul is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners. Accordingly the CRLMC is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy.