JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R. K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, read with Section 397/401 of the CrPC, is preferred by the petitioner, Sri Braham Prakash Bansal @ Rahul Bansal for quashing of the FIR dated 18.03.2019, filed by the respondent No.2, Sri Prakash Agarwal, to the effect that on 16.03.2019, his sister Smti Sunaina Palriwal (Bansal), who got married with one Braham Prakash Bansal of Dholla informed him that her in-laws subjected her to physical torture and kept her confined in a room and are not allowing her to come out and they are going to do away with her live. 3. Upon the said of the FIR, lodged by Sri Prakash Agarwal, the Dholla P.S. Case No.13/2019, under Section 498(A) of the IPC has been registered and investigation is being carried out. Pending investigation, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and being the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, not compoundable, they approached this Court by filing the present petition to quash the FIR. 4. Mr. R.K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed one additional affidavit, here in this petition stating that there are 13 cases pending between the parties and they have compounded all the cases amicably and Mr. Nath also produced a joint petition, filed by the parties before the Court of learned District Judge, Dibrugarh, where both the parties have put their signatures and on the basis of the said joint petition of both the parties, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR of Dholla P.S. Case No.13/2019, under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 5. Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 also submits that all the cases have been compounded between the parties and the respondent No.2 has no objection in the event of quashing of the FIR. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and documents placed on record and also perused the case diary, produced before this Court and also gone through the additional affidavit dated 13.09.2022, filed by the petitioner. 7. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and documents placed on record and also perused the case diary, produced before this Court and also gone through the additional affidavit dated 13.09.2022, filed by the petitioner. 7. It appears that the case was registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC and the offence is not compoundable and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing of the FIR. The petitioner and the informant are husband and wife. Now they are living separately. They have resolved all the disputes amongst themselves. 8. It is to be noted that in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decisions in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has held:-“that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves”. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned cases and also in view of the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that end of justice would be meted out if the petition is allowed. And even, if the proceeding is allowed to continue, no purpose will be served, as there is unlikelihood of the case ending in conviction as the informant and victim are unlikely to depose against the petitioner an account of compounding the case. 10. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. The FIR of Dholla P.S. Case No.13/2019, under Section 498(A) of the IPC stands quashed. 11. The parties have to bear their own costs.