JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. On behalf of the petitioners, the learned senior counsel Mr. P.P.N. Roy assisted by Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, the learned counsel and on behalf of State, learned Spl. PP Mrs. Priya Shreshtha are present. 2. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 despite the notice had been duly served to him in view of the office note. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by way of this petition under section 482 of Cr.PC the order dated 04.08.2015 passed in Gidhour P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 449 of 2013 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under sections 498A, 323, 324, 379 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the learned trial court while taking the cognizance has passed the impugned order without applying the judicial mind. It has been further submitted that during pendency of this case before the trial court, a compromise has also arrived between the parties and the dispute has been settled amicably. In para-6 of this criminal miscellaneous petition it has been stated that the complainant has compromised the case and joint petition of compromise has been filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra where earlier the case was pending before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. In joint compromise petition, the informant has stated that she has got no any grievance from the in-laws house and as such prayed to accept the joint petition. The xerox copy of the joint compromise petition is made annexure no.2 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition under section 482 of Cr.PC. 5. Further it has been submitted in para-7 that wife and husband both are residing together. In view of the above prayed to decide the proceeding in view of the compromise between the parties. 6. The learned Spl. PP on behalf of State opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and also contended that she has no knowledge in regard to the compromise arrived between the informant and the petitioners. So far as the impugned order passed by the learned court below is concerned the same has been passed applying the judicial mind by the court concerned. So far as the impugned order passed by the learned court below is concerned the same has been passed applying the judicial mind by the court concerned. 7. After passing the order of cognizance by the learned trial court the compromise has arrived between the parties since the dispute between the parties was matrimonial and this joint compromise petition is made annexure no.2 of the affidavit filed in support of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 8. Though no one is appearing on behalf of private opposite party no.2 despite service of notice; yet the para-6 and 7 wherein it has been stated that joint compromise has arrived between the parties and the wife has been residing in her in-laws house and now she is having no grievance. These para of this petition which are supported by the affidavit, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State as well. 9. These averment being uncontroverted, the same cannot be disbelieved. In view of the dispute being matrimonial between the parties and the same has been settled between the informant-victim and the petitioner accused persons amicably. Even if the offence is of 498A is uncompoundable but by invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.PC this dispute between the parties can be settled on the basis of the compromise. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.” (2012) 10 SCC 303 , that if the offence is merely a civil matter offences arising from commercial transaction, when the wrong is personal in nature and the parties have dissolved their dispute the proceeding may be quashed. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in “B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.” (2003) 4 SCC 675 , there is no doubt the object of 498A of IPC was to prevent the torture to the women by husband and relatives. The hyper technical view would be counter productive and against the interest of the women as it would prevent the women to settle the dispute earlier. High Court can quash the criminal proceeding or the FIR or the complaint and section 320 of Cr.PC does not limit the power under section 482 of Cr.PC. 12. The hyper technical view would be counter productive and against the interest of the women as it would prevent the women to settle the dispute earlier. High Court can quash the criminal proceeding or the FIR or the complaint and section 320 of Cr.PC does not limit the power under section 482 of Cr.PC. 12. Herein the case in hand, the dispute between the parties is matrimonial since the victim wife has herself settled the dispute with the petitioner who are accused herein all the members of in-laws house and she is also residing with her husband in her matrimonial house and these averment made in the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner are uncontroverted. 13. In view of the above, this criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be allowed. 14. This criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order and the proceeding in Gidhour P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 449 of 2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra is hereby quashed in view of the compromise arrived between the parties which is annexure no.2 of this petition.