1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 26.4.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu (for short "the trial Court") in regular Criminal Case No. 118/2005 State v. Iliyas has been challenged by the petitioner whereby the trial Court declined to accept the compromise filed by the complainant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. are not compoundable.

2. The respondent No.2-Pratap Khan who is father of the respondent No. 3, lodged a crime report for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioner, who is husband of the respondent No.3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties settled their dispute amicably and resolved all disputes whatsoever it had been between them and articles alleged to have been belonging to the respondent No. 3 had been received by the respondent No. 3. As also the parties went for Talak and dissolve the marriage i.e. Nikah solemnized between them and therefore, wanted to lead their life independent after Talak having been given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared before the trial Court and filed an application for compromise stating therein that divorce took place between the petitioner and respondent No.3 are with her. Thus, there is no criminal breach of trust, however, the trial Court finding the offences not compoundable dismissed the application. Hence, this petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and resolved all disputes whatever it had been and so far as the dowry articles alleged to have been belonging to the respondent No.3 are with the respondent -No.3 as stated in the application presented before the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the alleged dowry articles are with the respondent No.3 and none of the article is with the petitioner and therefore, there is no criminal breach of trust. So far as offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, since the parties have settled their dispute, therefore, now neither the complainant nor their witnesses are going to make any statement against the petitioner.

5. I have carefully gone through the order impugned as well as compromise filed by the complainant before the trial Court.

6. In B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 SCC (Cri.) 848 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it 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 power of quashing the F.I.R. The Apex Court further observed that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings of F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that non- exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the I.P.C.

7. In the instant case, the parties have settled their dispute. amicably and resolved their disputes whatsoever it had been between them. They have decided to lead their life independent after the dissolution of marriage (Talak). Since the complainant herself does not want to prosecute the petitioner in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served to allow the criminal proceedings to go on, therefore, keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra), in the interest of justice, it is considered just and proper to quash the criminal proceedings by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impug