By the Court—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the first information report lodged at case crime No. 395 of 2005, under Sections 498-A/323/504/506, IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Colonelganj, District Allahabad.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by the parties.

3. The F.I.R. contained the usual allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. As the parties appeared to be of respectable status and petitioner No. 3 is said to be working in Infosys company it was apparent to this Court that the FIR has been lodged under the aforesaid sections in view of the marital incompatibility between the petitioner No. 3, Prashant Gupta and respondent No. 3 Smt. Anjali Gupta. It may be mentioned that a divorce suit had even been filed by respondent No. 3 against petitioner No. 3 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. Keeping in mind the same advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations, we encouraged the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement with the aid of their Counsel. Accordingly during the course of the hearing of this petition on 9.5.2006, we postponed the case to 17.5.2006 so that the parties could thrash out the terms of a settlement. Fortunately the parties and Counsel have heeded our advice, and have reached a fair settlement to the satisfaction of both parties.

5. In pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner No. 3 has paid Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only ) by two bank drafts and a counter affidavit dated 9.5.2006 has even been filed by respondent No. 3 in which she has admitted receiving the amount, She has further mentioned that she is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of the FIR. She is also willing to file an application for withdrawal of criminal case No. 541 of 2005 (Smt. Anjali Gupta v. Prashant Gupta) under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. She further states that she will not claim any kind of maintenance from petitioner No. 3 in future also.

6. The petitioners are also agreeable to the aforesaid terms of the compromise. Learned Counsel for the petitioners however urges that petitioner No. 3 has no objection to the divorce decree being granted, but as petitioner No. 3 is not in Allahabad as he has to remain out of station and sometimes out of the country in connection with his employment in Infosys Ltd., when he appears before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad to file his consent and absence of objection to the prayer for divorce being sought by respondent No. 3, the concerned Court may be directed to dispose of the petition for divorce speedily and not grant any unnecessary adjournment.

7. Reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if we the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read :

“In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to la