ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by petitioners Naveen Sharma (Husband), Sharda Sharma (Mother-in-law), Dimple Sharma (Sister-in-law) of respondent no. 2/complainant for quashing impugned FIR No. 284/2014 registered at Mahila Police Station, Ajmer under Sections 406, 498-A IPC and subsequent proceedings. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. P. Jauhar submits that petitioner no. 1 has filed D.B. Habeaus Corpus Petition No. 106/2015 before this Court wherein on 17.12.2015, the Division Bench of this Court passed following order:- "Husband Naveen Sharma and wife Meenal are present in person. They both have minor son Pranav. In the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the husband has claimed custody of Pranav on the basis of orders dated 02.04.2015 and 16.04.2015 passed by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court, Hamilton, Ontario in Court File No. 3173-14. The wife is presently residing in Ajmer along with Pranav, whereas husband is an American citizen having his domicile in USA. Having regard to the nature of dispute between the parties, this Court referred the matter for mediation for amicable settlement. After mediation, the parties have agreed to live together by resolving their differences on following terms:- "(1) Both the parties will withdraw their respective cases within 4 months from today. (2) Mr. Naveen Sharma will find out 3-4 flats for choice of Smt. Meenal and Smt. Meenal will then go to U.S.A. to select one of them. This process should complete within 18 months. (3) In the meantime Mr. Naveen Sharma will come to India to meet Mrs. Meenal and Pranav at least for 3 time. Similarly Mrs. Meenal will go to U.S.A. along with her son under the security with condition that Mr. Naveen will arrange all their expenses including travelling expenses and will undertake that if both of them desire to return India then Mr. Naveen will arrange their safe return to India. (4) The flat which is going to purchase by Mr. Naveen Sharma should be in joint name of both party. None of the party will entitle to sale this flat or it's any part independently. Mr. Naveen Sharma will arrange collateral security against loan and in no case the flat should be taken from ownership and possession of Mrs. Meenal Sharma. In case any mishapening the flat will remain in ownership of Mrs. Meenal Sharma. (5) Mr. Naveen, Mrs. None of the party will entitle to sale this flat or it's any part independently. Mr. Naveen Sharma will arrange collateral security against loan and in no case the flat should be taken from ownership and possession of Mrs. Meenal Sharma. In case any mishapening the flat will remain in ownership of Mrs. Meenal Sharma. (5) Mr. Naveen, Mrs. Meenal and Pranav will live jointly at U.S.A. after purchase of flat. None of the family member of both parties will disturb and interfere in their lives." 3. He submits that since dispute between parties has already been resolved by the intervention of mediator and the same has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In settlement, it was decided that all parties shall withdraw their respective cases but respondent no. 2 even after settlement failed to withdraw the impugned FIR, therefore same may be quashed. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submits that petitioners have acted upon the settlement but now respondent no. 2/complainant is not withdrawing the impugned FIR and cooperating for quashing of FIR. 4. Learned PP submits that if compromise has been arrived between the parties then FIR may be quashed. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioners relied on Anshu Soni and Others vs. State and Another, 2012 SCC Online Del 5967 and Mohd. Shamim and Others vs. Nahid Begum and Another, AIR 2005 SC 757 . 6. In the matter of Mohd. Shamim and Others vs. Nahid Begum and Another (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:- "11. Before us, there is no denial or dispute as regards the factum of entering into the aforementioned settlement dated 14.11.2002. In the said deed of compromise it has categorically been averred that the same had been entered into on the intervention of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It has also been accepted that out of sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been paid to the First Respondent herein and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid at the time of complainant's making statement and no objection for quashing the FIR, which was retained in the court as per the direction of the court. It has further been averred that no dispute remained between the parties regarding the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc. 12. 50,000/- would be paid at the time of complainant's making statement and no objection for quashing the FIR, which was retained in the court as per the direction of the court. It has further been averred that no dispute remained between the parties regarding the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc. 12. In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion, the contention of the First Respondent herein to the effect that she was not aware of the contents thereof and the said agreement as also the affidavits which were got signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must be rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the denial of execution of the said deed of settlement is an afterthought on the part of the Respondent No. 1 herein. 13. Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If the contention of the First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she would not have accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and in any event, she could have filed an appropriate application in that behalf before the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. What was least expected of her was that she would return the said sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the Appellants herein. 14. Section 406 is a compoundable offence with the permission of the court. It is true that Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable. 15. This Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, 2004 (8) Supreme 525 , in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceeding against the husband, stating: (SCC pp. 301-302, paras 8-9) "8.........Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents. 9. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents. 9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue." 16. In view of the conduct of the first Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. Respondent No. 1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment be set aside. The First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent." Similarly in the matter of Anshu Soni and Others vs. State and Another, (supra), Single Bench of Delhi High Court observed that:- "5. It is apparent from the facts narrated herein above that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement before the learned Mediator, inasmuch as settlement has even been acted upon by the petitioners. The engagement ring has been returned and a sum of Rs. 1,37,500/- has been paid in Court on 28th September, 2012, inasmuch as, today petitioners have tendered the pay order in the sum of Rs. 1,37,500/-. Petitioners have done whatever they were required to do in terms of the settlement agreement dated 14th September, 2012. However, as an afterthought respondent no. 2 attempts to wriggle out of it on flimsy grounds after availing partial financial benefits in terms of the settlement, which in my view is impermissible. Respondent no. 2 cannot be allowed to withdraw herself from fulfilling her part of obligation as contained in the settlement agreement after availing benefits therefrom. Conduct of the respondent no. 2 clearly demonstrates that she wants to keep the criminal proceedings pending in order to harass the petitioners. 6. Respondent no. 2 cannot be allowed to withdraw herself from fulfilling her part of obligation as contained in the settlement agreement after availing benefits therefrom. Conduct of the respondent no. 2 clearly demonstrates that she wants to keep the criminal proceedings pending in order to harass the petitioners. 6. After having settled the matter through the process of mediation, which has even been acted upon partially, parties cannot be permitted to back track from the same as it will negate the aims and objectives of whole process of mediation. Withdrawal of consent by respondent no. 2 on some innocuous ground is impermissible. In Ruchi Aggarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, 2005 (1) ALT 42 (SC), civil and criminal litigations were pending between the husband and wife. Matter was compromised before the Family Court pursuant whereof, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted. Wife withdrew application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in terms of the settlement, however, she avoided to withdraw the complaint under Sections 498-A/328/506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, husband filed a petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal for quashing of the said complaint. In the said petition, High Court quashed the charge-sheet and the summoning order for want of territorial jurisdiction and transferred the investigations to the concerned Police Station. Wife preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court wherein criminal proceedings were quashed keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the parties despite opposition of the wife. 7. In Jaibir vs. State, 2007 (142) DLT 141 , in somewhat similar circumstances, a Single Judge of this Court quashed the FIR registered against the father and other relatives of wife despite opposition of the complainant-husband. In the said case also, husband and wife had settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The settlement was even acted upon by the parties, inasmuch as cases registered on the complaint of wife were disposed of in terms of the settlement. Later on, husband opposed the quashing of FIR registered on his complaint against the relatives of wife. It was held thus "this being a complete package, the complainant cannot turn around and oppose the petition after he agreed for quashing of these proceedings at the time of mediation proceedings. There is another aspect which needs to be emphasized. Later on, husband opposed the quashing of FIR registered on his complaint against the relatives of wife. It was held thus "this being a complete package, the complainant cannot turn around and oppose the petition after he agreed for quashing of these proceedings at the time of mediation proceedings. There is another aspect which needs to be emphasized. The settlement was arrived at during the mediation proceedings. The Legislature has amended Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. There is an all round attempt by the settlement of disputes through the process of Mediation. Therefore, once the disputes between the parties have been settled by the process of mediation, it would be in the public interest as well as to attach importance to such a process and treat the settlement as a solemn settlement. Otherwise, the movement of medication may itself suffer if the parties are given to understand that even after they agree for settlement, one of the parties can still back out." 8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the continuance of criminal proceedings would result in abuse of process of law, thus, the FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the settlement, despite opposition of the respondent no. 2. Accordingly, FIR No. 343/12 under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 506 IPC registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, however, subject to petitioners depositing balance settled amount, that is, 1,37,500/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) with the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks. Upon such deposit being made the same shall be kept in FDR initially for a period of six months with its automatic renewals thereafter. However, it would be open for the respondent no. 2 to withdraw this amount if, she so, desires." 7. Upon such deposit being made the same shall be kept in FDR initially for a period of six months with its automatic renewals thereafter. However, it would be open for the respondent no. 2 to withdraw this amount if, she so, desires." 7. From the perusal of aforesaid Division Bench order, it reveals that parties have settled their dispute, therefore relying on the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment and judgment of Single Bench of Delhi High Court continuing the criminal proceedings of impugned FIR would result in abuse of process of law, thus the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court while exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. therefore this Misc. Petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 284/2014 registered at Mahila Thana, Ajmer for offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC and subsequent proceedings emanating their from including LOC are quashed and set aside.