Cr. MMO No. 126 of 2006 13.05.2008 Present: Mr. Vijay Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is also present in person. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law officer, for respondent No. 1. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, counsel for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is also present in person. Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and has placed on record an affidavit that she has compromised with the petitioner and the present petition may be allowed and the proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 310 of 2006 be quashed. Some of the Sections mentioned in the FIR are non-compoundable. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, shows that quashing of criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint by High Court is permissible since Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482. It was held that for quashing of criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint where non-compoundable offences are involved, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have no limits, though this should be used with utmost care and caution required while invoking such powers. In that case, the offence was under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and it was observed that in case of matrimonial disputes/offences, …2… duty of Court is to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. In the present case, the petitioner is father of Mrs. Shalu who was married with Vikrant Soni and respondent No. 2 is her mother-in-law. Applying the above decision, the present petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR No. 310 of 2006 dated 12.9.2006, Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur stands quashed. Consequence to follow. Further proceedings initiated in pursuance of the filing of the challan in FIR No. 310 of 2006 are also accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed accordingly. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. May 13, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), J. (BSS)