Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No. 143/2018 registered at Women Police Station Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (North) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.

2. In the present case, quashing of impugned F.I.R., along with all subsequent proceedings has been sought on the basis of compromise affected between the parties.

3. Smt. Surbhi Singh, complainant/respondent No. 2/aggrieved - wife is present in person before this Court. She has been identified by her Counsel-Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma.

4. Smt. Surbhi Singh, complainant/respondent No. 2 present in person, has stated that on 02.12.2007, as per Hindu Customs & Rites, she was married with petitioner No. 1 - Rajeev Kumar.

5. During subsistence of marriage, one son, namely Garvit Singh was born on 30.09.2018. It is stated that at present son is with the mother/complainant-respondent No. 2.

6. Smt. Surbhi Singh, complainant/respondent No. 2 present in person, has stated that differences arose between the parties, she was compelled to lodge the present F.I.R. It is further stated that now the compromise has been affected between the parties on the intervention of the respectables and elders and the parties have already filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is stated that the petitioners have agreed to pay Rs. 18,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 towards permanent alimony, stridhan and cost of litigation etc. Complainant-respondent No. 2 present in person, has stated that full and final settlement has been arrived between the parties. It is stated that a demand draft of Rs. 18,00,000/- has been deposited in the Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur and the said draft shall be disbursed to the respondent No. 2, after decree of divorce by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is granted by the Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur.

7. Counsel appearing for the parties have vouchsafed the factum of compromise.

8. Counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal case pending between the parties arising out of F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 2 be quashed, so that the parties can pursue their life and move ahead.

9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the contents of the instant petition.

10. It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences.

11. Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Harayana, reported as (2003) 4 S.C.C. 675], the Apex Court has opined that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non-compoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at peace, if the parties arrive at compromise, then proceedings, qua offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute and the joint prayer made by the parties and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi [supra], the present petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No. 143/2018 registered at Women Police Station Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (North) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, is quashed, along with all subsequent proceedings.