JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, appearing for the State. And also heard Mr. M. Mondal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by applicants, namely, Subhit Saikia, Sikha Senapati and Subhan Saikia for quashing of the entire proceeding in PRC Case No. 492/2021, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the IPC, corresponding to Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 829/2021, registered under Section 498(A)/325/326/ 506 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia. 3. The factual background leading to filing the present petition is briefly stated as under. 4. On 10.05.2021, Smti Kakoli Talukdar, wife of Sri Subhit Saikia lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Biswanath Chariali P.S. alleging inter-alia, amongst others that she got married with Subhit Saikia on 19.11.2018, and thereafter, lived together with him as husband and wife and after the marriage, her husband and his family members subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. 5. As the place of occurrence falls under the jurisdiction of Tinsukia Police Station, the FIR was transferred to the Tinsukia Police Station and upon the same, the Officer-in-Charge, Tinsukia P.S. registered Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 829/2021, under Sections 498(A)/325/326/506 of the IPC and investigated the same and on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid the charge sheet against the present petitioners to stand the trial in the Court, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the IPC. 6. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the FIR and the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia, on the ground that they have settled the matter amicably among themselves and the respondent No. 2-Smti Kakoli Talukdar is living with the peitioner No. 1-Shri Subhit Saikia as husband and wife and they are not wiling to pursue the matter and to that effect, the respondent No. 2 Smti Kakoli Talukdar had filed one affidavit on 19.05.2022, to the effect that out of misunderstanding, she lodged the FIR and she is not wiling to proceed with the case further and she has been leading a happy conjugal life along with her husband and minor son, at Namsai in Arunachal Pradesh. 7. 7. It is to be noted here that in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.” 8. In the case in hand, the complainant and the petitioner No. 1 are husband and wife and the other two accused persons are family members of her husband. From the affidavit which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-4, it appears that the complainant has categorically stated that out of misunderstanding she lodged the case and now she has been leading a happy married life along with her husband and minor son at Namsai in Arunachal Pradesh. The dispute in this case is arising out of matrimonial dispute or family dispute. Besides, the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves. 9. It is also to be noted here that in a non-compoundable offence, when the parties have approached the Court for quashing the proceeding, on the basis of settlement, the guiding factor for the Court would be: (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court. Here in this case, since the matter is between the husband and the wife and since they have resolved the entire disputes between themselves and living together as husband and wife, to the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice will be meted out, if the petition is allowed. Moreover, if the case is allowed to continue in the Court of learned Court below, then also the respondent No. 2 is unlikely to depose against the petitioners and in such event, allowing the case to continue will be an abuse of the process of the Court. 10. In view of above, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly the same stands allowed. The proceeding in the PRC Case No. 492/2021, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia, is quashed and set aside. 11. 10. In view of above, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly the same stands allowed. The proceeding in the PRC Case No. 492/2021, under Sections 498(A)/323/506 of the IPC, pending in the Court of learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia, is quashed and set aside. 11. In terms of the above, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.