- (1.) BOTH the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Cr.M.P.No.725 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of Sandeep Santosh, husband of opposite party no.2 whereas Cr.M.P.No.670 of 2007 has been filed by in -laws of the opposite party no.2 and in both the applications initially prayer had been made to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint case no.1687 of 2006 (G.R.No.1024 of 2007) including the order dated 14.2.2007 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken by Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih but during the pendency of this application, parties have come to an agreement whereby both husband and wife decided to part with their ways and therefore, opposite party no.2 did file an application before the court below for withdrawing the case lodged by her but the court did not allow the complainant to withdraw the case as the offences lodged were non -compoundable and in that view of the matter, an interlocutory application has been filed wherein prayer has been made to quash the proceeding as the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel further submits that since the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute, entire proceedings needs to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another as reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 675].
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in both the cases, it does appear that compliant case no.1687 of 2006 was lodged by Reena Kumari alleging therein that the husband and other family members subjected her to torture and thereby a case was instituted under section 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken. However, before the trial court could proceed, parties settled heir matrimonial dispute. Thereupon, petition for compromise was filed with a prayer to quash the proceeding. No doubt offences alleged are non -compoundable in terms of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that would not be a bar in allowing the parties to compromise the matter for the ends of justice in exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the decision rendered in a case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) wherein it has been observed hereunder: " The object of introducing Chapter XX -A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent 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. A hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against the 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 XX -A of the Indian Penal Code.  Since the parties have settled their dispute, it would not be appropriate to allow the petitioners to face the rigor of the trial. Accordingly, in view of the principle laid down in the case referred to above, entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.1637 of 2006 including the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. In the result, both the applications are allowed. ;