B. Sudheendra Kumar, J.

The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in C.C. No.4834 of 2016 on the files of the court below.

2. The first respondent is the accused in the said case. The offence alleged against the first respondent as per Annexure 1 final report is the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

3. Heard.

4. Both the petitioner and the first respondent filed separate affidavits stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and hence, they are presently residing together as husband and wife under one roof.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Annexure-I final report cannot be quashed on the application filed by the de-facto complainant, since the offence alleged is not a compoundable offence. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the matter has been settled between the parties and hence, they are now residing together as husband and wife under one roof.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Nathmal Rathi and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (1992 KHC 1478) observed that a duty is cast upon the court to make every endeavour in matrimonial cases, to bring about a reconciliation between the parties, when it appears to the court that there is chance for saving the marriage. The Apex Court further held in Suresh Nathmal Rathi (supra) that both from the personal and social point of view, stability of marriage has certain value and a duty is imposed on every Court to bring about reconciliation between the parties.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana [JT 2003(3) SC 277 : AIR 2003 SC 1386] held that the court has a duty to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. The Apex Court further held in B.S. Joshi (supra) that any hyper technical view on the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. would be counter-productive and act against the interest of women and against the object for which the provision was inacted.

8. There may be many reasons for a wife to seek for quashing the proceedings against the husband and her inlaws initiated by her. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his family members and as a result thereof, she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she had willingly parted the company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or for some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance for conviction. Then, it would not be proper to decline to exercise the power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reason including lack of bonafides.

9. The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014 KHC 4195) held that those criminal cases having over-whelingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

10. In this case, the offence alleged against the first respondent is the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Now the matter has been settled between the parties and presently, the wife is residing with her husband and other family members. They have filed separate affidavits before this court in this regard. It is true that Section 498A I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of inherent power of quashing. She has already filed an affidavit stating that she is now residing with her husband and his family members after settling the entire disputes with them. Section 498A I.P.C. was added in Chapter XXA of t