K. S. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS 2 and 3 are the parents while petitioner No. 4 is the sister of petitioner No. 1. All of them have jointly filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. alleging that petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 on 30th November, 1987 and unfortunately disputes arose between them since the inception of marriage itself. Pursuant to a settlement (copy annexure `a ), marriage in between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the order dated 20th March, 1998 and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 was paid in cash by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 towards all her claims. Based on FIR No. 577/94 lodged by respondent No. 2, criminal proceedings under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code are pending against the petitioners before Ms. Swaran Kanta Mehra, M. M. In the statement made in divorce proceedings, the respondent No. 2 had undertaken not to pursue the said criminal proceedings. It is prayed that the pending criminal proceedings - State Vs. Harinder Singh and Ors. flowing from said FIR No. 577/94 under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code P. S. Malviya Nagar, may be quashed. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has contested the petition by filing reply. It is not disputed that marriage in between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the order dated 20th March, 1998. However, it is alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 was paid by petitioner No. 1 for getting the divorce and not for escaping from punishment for the offences committed by petitioners for which FIR No. 577/94 was lodged. It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 is guilty of not closing the cases lodged by him against respondent No. 2 and others including the case for custody of the child namely Guneet Singh, as agreed. ( 3 ) I have heard the petitioners who have argued in person Ms. Neelam Grover for the State and Sh. P. N. Mishra, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and have also been taken through the record. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY on reaching settlement, by the order dated 20th March, 1998, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by granting divorce. Neelam Grover for the State and Sh. P. N. Mishra, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and have also been taken through the record. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY on reaching settlement, by the order dated 20th March, 1998, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by granting divorce. Copy of the terms of settlement and compromise (annexure `a ) is placed at pages 5 and 6 of the paper book. `copies of the joint statement of the parties recorded on 10th March, 1998 and the said order dated 20th March, 1998, are placed at pages 7 to 13. Clauses 1 to 4 and 7 of the terms of settlement and compromise (annexure `a ) which are relevant read as under: "1. That the Petitioner No. 1 Husband shall pay to the petitioner No. 2-Wife Rs. 1,50,000. 00 (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) in full and final settlement of all claims, demands, disputes whatsoever and whenever having occurred in past, present and future, upon final signing on Petition for divorce by mutual consent. 2. That the Petitioner No. 2-wife will give No Objection/undertaking for quashing of FIR No. 577 U/s 406/498a, Indian Penal Code an also has no claim, right or lien on the FDR No. 401346 dt. 2. 2. 95 in favour of District Judge which is lying in the safe custody of Distt. Nazir for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 as per the orders of Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge dated. 31. 1. 95 and has no objection if the said F. D. R. is transferred in the name of Petitioner No. 1 i. e. Harinder Singh and his parents i. e. S. Avtar Singh and Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Account Holders. 3. That the custody of the minor child Master Guneet Singh, aged about 9-1/2 years will vest with the Petitioner No. 2-Wife till the child attains majority, whereafter, he would exercise his own option being of discerning age. 4. That the visitation rights of the child shall vest with Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 2 will grant permission to meet the child once every fortnight and petitioner No. 1 will not claim custody of the minor child in any court of law. 7. 4. That the visitation rights of the child shall vest with Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 2 will grant permission to meet the child once every fortnight and petitioner No. 1 will not claim custody of the minor child in any court of law. 7. That both the parties i. e. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 will withdrawn all the cases against each other and their families unconditionally and finally and will help in withdrawing cases against each other and their families as per Annexure 1. " ( 5 ) INDISPUTABLY, said terms of settlement and compromise form part of the joint statement made by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 dated 10th March, 1998 and also the said order dated 20th March, 1998. Details of the cases by and between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and their families reference whereof is made in said clause 7, is placed at pages 129-130. It is not in dispute that the Guardianship Petition No. 54/97 which is also included in the said list filed by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 2 which petitioner No. 1 had undertaken to withdraw pursuant to clause 7, is still being pursued by him vigorously before the Guardian Judge, Delhi. Bare perusal of the present petition shows that quashment of the criminal proceedings arising from aforesaid FIR No. 577/94 is sought by the petitioners not on the ground that the averments made in that FIR do not prima facie disclose commission of offence under Sections 406/498-A, Indian Penal Code by them but on the foundation that respondent No. 2 had undertaken not to pursue and assist in withdrawing it as per the terms of the settlement and compromise and the statement made on 10th March, 1998. In my opinion, petitioners cannot legitimately rely on that statement made by respondent No. 2 and also clauses 2 and 7 of the said terms of settlement and compromise unless the petitioner No. 1 fulfills his part of the obligations thereunder by withdrawing said Guardianship Petition No. 54/97. Law is now well settled that the power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed and the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is dismissed.