1. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No.2 along with their counsels are present before the Court.

2. Both the parties agree that they have entered into a compromise to resolve their dispute in M.C. No.4988/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, before the Bangalore Mediation Centre and they have entered into Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of C.P.C.

3. The learned counsels have drawn my attention to Paragraph-4 of the compromise petition, wherein the parties have agreed for some terms and by virtue of the said compromise, Respondent No.2 herein has accepted to co-operate with the petitioners' in getting the criminal complaint filed by her in C.C. No.735/2014 pending on the file of the II-ACMM, Bangalore, quashed.

4. The parties have agreed before this Court that they are also fortifying the compromise entered into between them before the Bangalore Mediation Centre. It is also admitted the Family Court accepted the compromise entered into between the parties and granted decree of divorce as prayed for, vide order dated 25.07.2014 (a copy of which is also produced before the court).

5. The records disclose that Respondent No.2 herein has filed First Information Report registered in Crime No.43/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, D.P. Act.). The police after due investigation, submitted the charge sheet in C.C. No.735/2014 before the II -ACMM, Bangalore, which is sought to be quashed.

6. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-

"Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. ............."

7. It is also worth to note here the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another ((2013) 4 SCC 58), wherein the Apex Court, particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has laid down a law that the court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to matrimonial disputes, which reads as follows:-

"The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC are wide and unfettered. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC.

Consequently, even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.PC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of