JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. In both the petitions cognizance order dated 03.06.2019 passed in Dhanwar P.S. Case No.84 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.493 of 2019 have been challenged. Cr. M.P. No.991 of 2020 has been filed by the husband of the opposite party no.3. In Cr. M.P. No.524 of 2020 petitioners are father-in-law and mother-law. The case was lodge under Sections 498-A, 313, 420, 406, 417/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It was alleged that on the basis of written report of the informant namely Md. Yakub Ansari to the Officer-in-Charge of Ghordhambha O.P., Dhanwar P.S. alleging therein that his daughter Anisha Khatoon married with the son of the petitioners in the year 2013 who only made physical relationship with his daughter and when she became pregnant, her husband administered medicine just to discharge the pregnancy for last six years. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in Cr. M.P. No.991 of 2020, I.A. No.242 of 2021 and in Cr. M.P. No.524 of 2020, I.A. No.240 of 2021 have been filed jointly on behalf of petitioners and wife-opposite party no.3 on compromise. 6. Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that compromise has been taken place between the parties and this matter can be allowed in terms of judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 . Both the counsels have jointly submit that the this case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and there is no public interest in this matter and no adverse inference will fall in the society in quashing of the cognizance order. Para 3 of compromise petition is incorporated as under :- 3. That petitioner in this application along with co-accused namely Muneja Khatoon and Md. Para 3 of compromise petition is incorporated as under :- 3. That petitioner in this application along with co-accused namely Muneja Khatoon and Md. Kasim (father-in-law and mother in law) have settled their dispute outside of the court settlement for the following terms : (a) O.P. No. 3 and petitioner (husband) will withdraw from their matrimonial life and they will obtain divorce from appropriate forum in which they will co-operate each other. (b) That accused persons have already handed over two Demand Draft of Rs. Two lakhs vide DD no. 755374 and of Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand 755375 (total of three and half lakhs) to the O.P No. 3 as a full and final settlement. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in terms of compromise, the amount in question, has already been paid. 8. Mr. Roy accepts this position that amount in question has been received as compromise entered into between parties. He submits that in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the complaint filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 of the I.P.C. quashed the F.I.R. for the ends of justice. Para 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow :- 8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. 10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, 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 the ends of justice so require. 10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, 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 the 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 the 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? The answer clearly has to be in the “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? The answer clearly has to be in the “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. 11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, it was 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 are 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. 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 9. In view of above facts, and considering the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the Case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra), and the interlocutory applications, whereby compromise has been entered into between the parties, the cognizance order dated 03.06.2019 passed in Dhanwar P.S. Case No.84 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.493 of 2019 including the entire proceeding pending in the Court of Shri Shambhu Mahto, learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, is hereby, quashed. 10. Accordingly, Cr. M.P. No.991 of 2020 and Cr. M.P. No.524 of 2020, are allowed and disposed of. I.A. No.242 of 2021 and I.A. No.240 of 2021 are also allowed and disposed of. Application allowed.