IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2046 of 2002 Date of Decision : February 15, 2010 Mukesh Kumar Singla and others ....Petitioners Versus Saroj Singla .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The respondent filed a private Criminal complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A/406/504/506/465/ 467/468/471/120-B/148/149 IPC read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After going through the preliminary evidence, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, vide order dated 4.12.1999 declined to entertain the prayer of the complainant for summoning of the petitioners and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved of the same, the complainant filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C., which was accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, on 16.7.2002. The order dated 4.12.1999 passed by learned Magistrate was set-aside with a direction that a fresh order be passed keeping in Crl. Revision No. 2046 of 2002 -2- view the evidence on record and the observations made in the order. The petitioners filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 16.7.2002. When notice of motion was issued, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. The matter pertains to the matrimonial dispute between the complainant/respondent on the one hand and Mukesh Kumar Singla- petitioner, on the other. The remaining petitioners are close relatives of Mukesh Kumar Singla. It stands mentioned in Criminal Misc. No.7708 of 2010 filed by the petitioners, which stands disposed of vide order of even date, that the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and Mukesh Kumar Singla-petitioner already stands amicably resolved. Pursuant to the said compromise, the parties preferred a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed by this Court on 21.11.2007. As per the compromise, the complainant has also received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from Mukesh Kumar Singla- petitioner as full and final settlement of all her claims of maintenance and alimony. Besides, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was received by way of bank draft by the complainant in the name of her daughter Ms. Urja Rani. The aforementioned facts have not been disputed by Crl. Revision No. 2046 of 2002 -3- learned counsel for the complainant-respondent. In view of the fact that the matter stands amicably settled, the revision is accepted and the order dated 16.7.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, is set-aside and that of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, dated 4.12.1999, is restored. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 15, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1