Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), the applicants (1) Amit Kumar, (2) Smt. Mahendri, (3) Smt. Savita, (4) Smt. Rajnees, (5) Smt. Mamchandra, (6) Amrish, (7) Rajesh and (8) Suneel have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 (State v. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime No. 242 of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., in brief, are that marriage of applicant No. 1 Amit Kumar and opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari took place on 6.3.2006, but subsequently some misunderstanding and disputes were developed between the couple, as a result of which Smt. Aadesh Kumari lodged an FIR against the applicants at P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut on 24.2.2008, where a case under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime No. 242 of 2008. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants, on which cognizance has been taken and on the basis of that chargesheet, criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 was registered against the applicants, which is pending in the Court of Chief Juidical Magistrate, Meerut. An application for granting maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was also moved by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari against her husband Amit Kumar (applicant No. 1) in Family Court, Meeurt, which was registered as case No. 44 of 2009. During the pendency of these cases, due to intervention of some well-wishers and relatives, the parties settled their dispute, in consequence whereof the applicant No. 1 paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to Smt. Aadesh Kumari as lumpsum maintenance, on the basis of which, the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been rejected vide order dated 23.8.2009 (annexure-5) passed by the Family Court, Meerut. As a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of criminal case referred in para (1) above.

3. I have heard arguments of Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

4. The parties have filed joint affidavit annexing therewith a photostat copy of the compromise entered into between them. In para 5 of the compromise, it is stated that the parties would get criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 arising out of case crime No. 242 of 2008 pending in the Court of CJM, Meerut dismissed. In the joint affidavit, which has been filed by the applicant No. 1 Amit Kumar and Smt. Aadesh Kumari (opposite party No. 2), it is stated that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably out of the Court.

5. Drawing my attention towards the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003(46) ACC 779, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 (State v. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime No. 242 of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, as matrimonial dispute has been settled by the parties and with their consent, they have separated themselves and whole time maintenance also been paid to opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C.

6. Since the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably, hence this Court can quash the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case in its inher