(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR no. 127 of 2002, registered under Section 498-A/323/34 IPC, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. Quashing has been sought on the ground that respondent No. 2 Pushpa Rani had entered into a compromise with the petitioners through Mediation cell on 13th March, 2008 and it was agreed in the compromise that the FIR would be got quashed. It was also agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would also withdraw his divorce case pending before the Court of ADJ. However, the petitioner No. 1 withdrew his case, the respondent No. 2 did not agree for quashing of the criminal case and therefore this petition has been filed.
(2.) THE respondent has opposed quashing of FIR on the ground that the compromise arrived at between the parties was breached by the petitioner and in view of the breach of the compromise, she was not bound by the compromise. To press his point, the petitioner relied upon Jaibir and Ors. Vs. State and Anr., 142 (2007) DLT 141 and Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Ors., JT 2004 (10) SC 475, whereas the respondent relied upon Kamal Dhawan Vs. State and Anr., 1 (2000) DMC 22.
(3.) THE judgments relied upon by the petitioner are those judgments where parties had separated from each-other and the compromise arrived at between the parties were based on lump sum payment to be received by the wife and the wife, after taking benefit of the compromise and receiving part payment, had refused to agree to the quashing of FIR. Present case is entirely different. Here, respondent No. 2 had agreed for quashing of FIR in order to reconcile and give a fresh chance to marriage so that she could happily live in matrimonial home. Since the atmosphere in the matrimonial home continued to be adverse and she could not live there, I consider that she cannot be forced to withdraw the criminal case lodged by her on the basis of a failed compromise between the parties. I find no force in this petition, the petition is hereby dismissed.