Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Since both the applications arise out of Kaji Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2014, as such, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP for the State.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR bearing Kaji Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2014 (G.R. No.2535 of 2014) arising out of Complaint Case No. 803 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute on 23.09.2019.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Singh but she was subjected to torture by the accused persons, the petitioners herein due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, leading to filing of the FIR bearing Kaji Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.173 of 2014 under Sections 498 (A) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh (husband of the informant) filed O.S. (MTS) Suit No. 134 of 2017 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce with mutual consent. Thereafter, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi granted decree of divorce with mutual consent for dissolving their marriage vide judgment and order dated 17.08.2017.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the informant/opposite party no.2 filed a petition for compromise dated 23.09.2019 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, (East) Muzaffarpur and the informant was personally present in the Court and admitted that she has entered into compromise with the petitioners which is also evident from the bail order dated 23.09.2019 passed Kaji Mohammad P.S. Case No. 173 of 2014 (G.R. No. 2535 of 2014) by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st (East), Muzaffarpur.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that now full and final settlement has been made between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 and no further dispute remains between the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not oppose the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners and supports the submission that all the disputes have been settled and the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further in the matter. He further submits that a counter affidavit admitting the factum of settlement has been filed by the opposite party no.2 which is on record.

9. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has no objection for quashing the FIR as the matter has been amicably settled after compromise between the husband and wife.

Perused the records.

10. Though the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is not compoundable. However, Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, as also in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi vs.Babita Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, examined the ambit and scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing of the criminal proceeding in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial dispute.

11. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) held in paragraphs No. 15 to 17 as under:—

“15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties hav