V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Dr. Sanjay Sandhya and his parents, praying for quashing of the F. I. R. No. lo of 1994, recorded at Police Station Trilok Puri, Delhi against them, under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, at the instance of Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was married to Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya, respondent No. 2 on i9. 7. 1991, Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1. On account of differences, Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya, respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the petitioners, on the basis of which, F. I. R. No. 10 of 1994 was registered in P. S. Trilok Puri, Delhi, in which. Dr. Sanjay Sanadhya and his parents have been impleaded as accused. The matter is still under investigation. ( 3 ) AT the intervention of family friends and others, the parties have entered into a compromise and the petitioners have returned the dowry articles and Istridhan to the respondent No. 2. A sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 has already been paid while another sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 has been kept with Shri Adarsh B. Dial, 127 Advocate, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, which would be paid to the respondent No. 2, at the time of the passing of the decree for divorce. In view of the compromise, the respondent No. 2 did not want to proceed further with her complaint made to the police at Delhi as also the complaint, which she filed against the petitioners in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (City), Agra under Sections 3, 4 and6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ( 4 ) STATEMENTS of respondent No. 2 Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya as also of Dr. Sanjay Sanadhya, petitioner No. 1 have separately been recorded. It has been clearly stated by Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya that she was married to Petitioner No. I on 19. 7. 1991, and on her complaint, case F. I. R. No. 10 of 1994 has been registered against the petitioner in P. S. Trilok Puri, Delhi, under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC, which is pending investigation. It has been clearly stated by Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya that she was married to Petitioner No. I on 19. 7. 1991, and on her complaint, case F. I. R. No. 10 of 1994 has been registered against the petitioner in P. S. Trilok Puri, Delhi, under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC, which is pending investigation. She has also clearly stated that they have agreed for a mutual divorce and in that direction, first motion has already been made in the Court of Ms. Beena Birbal, Additional Districts Judge, Delhi, where, their statements have already been recorded. She has also stated that she has received back her dowry articles and Istridhan and did not want to proceed further with her complaint, made to the police at Delhi as also her compliant filed against the petitioners in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Agra. She has further stated having received a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 from petitioner No. I and another sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 would be paid to her at the time of passing of the decree of divorce, which amount has now been kept with Shri Adarsh B. Dial, Advocate, Petitioner No. 1 has made a statement corroborating the statement of Dr. (Ms.) Sucheta Sanadhya, respondent No. 2. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that the partics have amicably settled their disputes and have mutually agreed fur a divorce, it would be in the fitness of things that the criminal proceedings agains t the petitioners are not continued. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports this submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the State submits that since the parties have amicably settled the matter, the State does not want that the investigation should be continued so as to make the petitioners suffer the agony of trial. Even otherwise, in view of the compromise, arrived at between the parties, it is unlikely that the case would result in conviction of the accused persons. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING all the facts, I am of the view that ends of justice require that the F. I. R. No. 10 of 1994, recorded at P. S. Trilok Puri, Delhi under Sections 406,498- A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code be quashed. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING all the facts, I am of the view that ends of justice require that the F. I. R. No. 10 of 1994, recorded at P. S. Trilok Puri, Delhi under Sections 406,498- A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code be quashed. As a result, the application is allowed and the F. I. R. No. 10 of 1994, recorded at P. S. Trilokpuri, Delhi under Sections 406,498- A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against Dr. Sanjay Sanadhya, Shri N. N. Sanadhya and Smt. Vimlesh Sanadhya, pending investigation in Police Station Trilok Puri is quashed. Petition dismissed.