( 1 ) THIS is a petition u/sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code) for quashing of FIR No. 317/87 registered at P. S. R. K. Puram, New Delhi u/sec. 498a/406/34, Indian Penal Code and the proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are, mat the petitioner No. 1 (Satish Gathwal) was married to respondent No. 2 (Sujata) on 27. 1. 1986. The parties could not pull on together for long and have been living separately since August, 1987. A complaint dated 15. 9. 1987 was filed by respondent No. 2 wife alleging harassment and demand of dowry against the husband, his father and mother on the basis of which aforesaid FIR No. 317/87 was registered. After investigations, Challan was submitted and charges have also since been framed on 7. 8. 1996. In the meantime parties entered into a written agreement dated 4. 6. 1996 whereby they settled the disputes between them on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Inter alia, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 7. 00 lakhs was to be paid by the husband to the wife and in consideration of that the parties would go for divorce and shall also seek quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising out of it. Apparently, in pursuance of this agreement, the present petition was filed here. Parties appeared here on September 25, 1996 and made statements before this Court on that day confirming the settlement arrived at between them but the amount payable was enhanced to Rs. 8. 00 lakhs. A sum ofrs. 5. 00 lakhs was paid to the wife in Court on that day and the balance amount was to be paid as per their statements made in Court.

( 3 ) A joint petition u/sec. 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed on 15. 10. 1996. Both the parties appeared before the Court of learned Additional District Judge on l6. 10. 1996 and had made consenting statements and a sum of Rs. 1. 00 lakh was paid by the husband to the wife as per statements made in this Court on September 25,1996. It appears that for the second motion the wife has not agreed.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner-husband has been ready to fulfil his obligation and has filed the petition for the second motion but the respondent-wife has not joined and is avoiding joining in the second motion and thereby the divorce could not be secured.

( 5 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition u /sec. 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR and the proceedings.

( 6 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the agreement, the statements made by the parties on 25. 9. 1996 and other relevant circumstances and has contended that the respondent-wife had entered into settlement, has taken Rs. 6. 00 lakhs in pursuance of agreement and by giving an undertaking that the marriage will be dissolved by a decree by joint petition and that criminal proceedings will be got quashed, the respondent is misusing the process of this Court and in the circumstances, it is eminently in the interest of justice not to allow her to so misuse and these proceedings be quashed.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-wife has contended that it was never agreed between the parties that the amount of Rs. 8. 00 lakhs was to be paid as a consideration for quashing these proceedings. The amount was payable in settlement of her claim towards her maintenance, istridhan and dowry articles and that settlement has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings pending trial.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the State supports the petitioner on the ground that taking into consideration the statements made and conduct of the parties, it will be misuse of the process of the Court to continue these proceedings.

( 9 ) I have considered the contentions. Copy of the agreement dated 4. 6. 1996 has been placed on record. Correctness of the same has not been disputed. It reads as under:

"agreement XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX And Whereas on account of intervention of