JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 158/1999 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after lodging of FIR, a settlement was entered between the parties and in pursuance of it, application under Section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "Act of 1955") was filed to seek divorce mutually. In the divorce petition, the parties agreed not to pursue any litigation and at the same time, not to indulge themselves in any civil or criminal litigation even in future. The settlement towards "Stridhan" was also made. The petitioners had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the non-petitioner No. 2. After the settlement and petition for mutual divorce, nothing remained in the criminal case, however, it is being pursued by the non-petitioner No. 2 against her own promise made in the divorce petition is filed mutually. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings in pursuance to the FIR deserve to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 submits that trial has already progressed where the evidence of the prosecution has been completed. In view of the above, interference in the proceedings may not be made. It is further stated that mutual divorce was taken but the condition therein was flouted by the petitioners themselves. They did not pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, as was promised. In view of the above, the non-petitioner No. 2 is rightly pursuing the criminal case. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is a case where FIR was registered against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC. After the FIR, a petition for divorce under Section 13(b) of the Act of 1955 was filed mutually. Therein, the parties had agreed not to indulge themselves in criminal or civil litigation in future, which may cause damage to them. It was further agreed that whatever "Stridhan" exists, it would be kept by the non-petitioner No. 2. It was lastly agreed that no criminal case would be pursued, rather it would be withdrawn. In view of above, there exists no reasons to allow the criminal proceedings, as it goes otherwise against the settlement. It was further agreed that whatever "Stridhan" exists, it would be kept by the non-petitioner No. 2. It was lastly agreed that no criminal case would be pursued, rather it would be withdrawn. In view of above, there exists no reasons to allow the criminal proceedings, as it goes otherwise against the settlement. The Court below could not have dropped the proceedings, as the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable and at the time of hearing of case for framing of charges, the documents in defence cannot be accepted but the proceedings can be quashed by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, and taking into consideration the terms of settlement mentioned in the divorce petition, criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 158/1999 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur is quashed. It is, however, on condition that petitioners would pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the non-petitioner No. 2 regularly and that would be by 07th day of each month. In case of default, they would not only be liable for consequences but the non-petitioner No. 2 would be at liberty to make an application before this Court to pass a consequential order adverse to the petitioners, if any amount is due towards monthly payment, it would be paid by the petitioners by 07th April, 2015 along with the amount, which otherwise becomes due on monthly basis by the aforesaid date.With the aforesaid, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******