M.R. Pathak, J.

Heard Mr. Mahibur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. S.M. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. The petitioner No. 1 Miss Marjina Bibi is the wife of the petitioner No. 2 Md. Abdul Ali. Because of some personal dispute between them, the petitioner No. 1, on 20-06-2016, lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Chhaygaon Police Station alleging that in the afternoon around 04:00 pm on 19.06.2016, while she was with her daughter, her husband, the petitioner No. 2, in presence of other members of her in-laws, physically assaulted her and also demanded dowry from her and later on the same night drove her out from her matrimonial home with her son and daughter, for which she had to take shelter in her father's house. On the basis of the said FIR, Chhaygaon Police Station Case No. 260/2016 (corresponding to GR Case No. 939(K)/2016), under Section 498(A) IPC was registered against the petitioner No. 2 and the other members of her in-laws.

3. Due to intervention of senior members as well as well-wishers of the victim informant petitioner No. 1 and her of her husband, petitioner No. 2, both the petitioners have settled their dispute amongst them amicably and it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is presently living in her matrimonial home with the petitioner No. 2 happily as husband and wife. It is also submitted that as this fact has already been brought to the notice of the concerned police station, the investigation of the said police case has not yet began and the accused petitioner No. 2, husband of the victim, informant, petitioner No. 1 and the other members of her in-laws named in the said FIR have not been arrested in the said case.

4. As the differences between the victim informant petitioner No.1 of the and her husband, petitioner No. 2 have already been sorted out amicably and since they are living happily as husband and wife in the matrimonial home of the petitioner No. 1; so the said victim informant, petitioner No.1 now does not want to proceed with the said Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016 against her husband petitioner No. 2 and other members of her in-laws.

5. Therefore, in this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, petitioners have prayed that the alleged accused persons of said Chhaygaon PS Case No. 260/2016, including petitioner No. 1's husband, the Petitioner No.2 should be discharged of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and the relevant FIR dated 20.06.2016 lodged by her pertaining to said Chhaygaon PS Case should be set aside and quashed.

6. Section 498(A) IPC is a non-compoundable offence. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 have held that - the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can quash a criminal proceeding with regard to matrimonial dispute where the dispute is entirely private in nature and where the parties are willing to settle their matrimonial disputes amicably and it becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of such matrimonial disputes.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa and other cases have laid down that -

"if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power."

8. A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have held that -

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as