ORDER : Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. Heard on Admission. 2. Admit. 3. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 4. Petitioners have filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of Criminal Case No.RCC/3652/2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, arising out of FIR No.18/2017 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant (wife of petitioner No.1) on 23.02.2017 at PS- GRP Bhilai, for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 5. Brief facts of this case are that on 25.02.2016 respondent No.2/complainant was married with petitioner No.1 (Shiv Prasad Nayak). After marriage, due to some matrimonial dispute, complainant lodged report against her husband and in-laws (petitioner Nos.2 to 5) in the concerned Police Station. Based upon which, offence under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC was registered against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of criminal case, settlement arrived between petitioners and complainant and their statements were also recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 10.09.2024. As per settlement between the parties, complainant does not want any further action against the petitioners pursuant to FIR registered on her complaint. Though offence under Section 498(A) of IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision has held that offence of private nature, commercial and matrimonial relationship or family dispute can be permitted to be compounded in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, FIR as well as entire criminal proceeding pending before JMFC, Durg be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that marriage between petitioner No.1 with complainant/respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.02.2016 and within short period of time matrimonial dispute arose, but now complainant has amicably settled the dispute with her husband and in-law and do not want to prosecute the criminal case further. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that since the parties have arrived at compromised and respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the criminal case further, she is having no objection if the matter is closed and the offence is permitted to be compounded. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the application dated 18.07.2023 and statements of the parties recorded before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court. 10. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the application dated 18.07.2023 and statements of the parties recorded before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of BS Joshi & Ors versus State of Haryana & Anr reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , has considered the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute particularly for the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC and held thus :- “13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [ (2000) 3 SCC 693 ] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.” 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr (2012) 10 SCC 303 , while considering its earlier decision in case of Shiji alias Pappu & Anr vs Radhika & Anr (2011) 10 SCC 705 held thus :- “41. In Shiji vs. Radhika this Court considered the exercise of inherent power by the High Court under Section 482 in a matter where the offence was not compoundable as the accused was already involved in commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 394 IPC. The High Court rejected the prayer by holding that the offences with which appellants were charged are not ‘personal in nature’ to justify quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the complainant and the appellants. This Court considered earlier decisions of this Court, the provisions contained in Sections 320 and 394 of the Code and in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 (pgs. 712 and 713) of the Report held as under: “17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non- compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC. 18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked. 19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. 19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.” 12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 has held thus:- “6. Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. Section 4 of the Dowry Act is also non-compoundable. It is not necessary to state that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by a Court. While considering the request for compounding of offences the Court has to strictly follow the mandate of Section 320 of the Code. It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc. (See Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ]) . If the High Court forms an opinion that it is necessary to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure ends of justice, the High Court can do so. (See Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ]) . If the High Court forms an opinion that it is necessary to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure ends of justice, the High Court can do so. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is not inhibited by Section 320 of the Code. Needless to say that this Court can also follow such a course. ” 13. If facts of the case are tested in the light of above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that criminal case is pending against the petitioners on complaint filed by respondent No.2 arising out of matrimonial dispute and pursuant to which offence under Sections 498(A) of IPC was registered against the petitioners. The joint application was moved by petitioners with respondent No.2 and after filing of this petition statements of the petitioners and respondent No.2 was also recorded before Additional Registrar (Judicial) in which parties have stated that they do not want to pursue the proceeding further in the criminal case. 14. It is also pertinent to mention here that offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC is ‘personal in nature’ and after settlement of dispute between the parties, there is minimal chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. It is well established principle that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.PC must be for securing the ends of justice and in the present case refusal to exercise this power may result in the abuse of the process of law. It is a genuine compromise between the parties, during pendency of criminal case. 15. Considering above facts of the case, submission of counsel for the respective parties, aforementioned decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, statements of the parties recorded before Additional Registrar (Judicial), I am inclined to allow the petition. 16. Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR No.18/2017 & Criminal Case No. RCC/3652/2017 pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, are hereby quashed. Certified copy as per rules.