JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This is a revision at the instance of the informant in a G. R. Case seeking reversal of the order of acquittal of opp. party No. 1 from a charge u/s 498-A, IPC. On the information lodged by the petitioner G. R. Case No. 211 of 1987 was registered against opp. party No. 1 Under Sections 498-A and Section 506, IPC. During the trial of the case both the petitioner and opp. party No. 1 filed a petition for compounding the offence u/s 506, IPC which was allowed and the opp. party No. 1 was acquitted of the charge u/s 320;8) Cr. P. C. The trial thereafter proceeded only in respect of the offence u/s 498-A, IPC but on 9-1-1989 both parties filed a deed of agreement made between them on a stamp paper in presence of the members of the Reconciliation Cell and Legal Aid Committee of Baliiguda Sub-division and in consonance with it the APP filed a Memo in Court declining to adduce further evidence and the evidence for the prosecution was closed. The Court took into consideration the fact of agreement between the parties showing the dispute between t in to have been amicably settled, and finding that the prosecution had not Jed the requisite evidence and had failed to establish the case against opp. party No.1 u/s 498-A,IPC, acquitted him of the charge u/s 248(1), Cr PC. It is the petitioner's case that immediately after securing such order of acquittal, the opp. party No. 1 started ill-treating the petitioner as before and drove her out of his house and hence she claims that the order of acquittal be reversed and the case be ordered to proceed for trial. In the revision petition the substantial ground made out is that Section 498-A, IPC, being not compoundable,the order of acquittal based upon any petition is illegal and hence should be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner" has not appeared to support the petition. The learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 though was present in Court, yet has left the Court when the matter was taken up. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner" has not appeared to support the petition. The learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 though was present in Court, yet has left the Court when the matter was taken up. This being a revision in which the records of the case have been called for, the matter is to be disposed of on perusal of rocords and if any impropriety or illegality is noticed necessitating interference of the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, the Court has to interfere so that ultimate justice is done to the case. A reading of the impugned order of acquittal shows it to have primarily proceeded on the basis of an agreement before the Reconciliation Cell and the Legal Aid Committee as a result of which the prosecution declined to lead any further evidence. Such conduct of the prosecuting agency was based on the fact that a deed of settlement between the parties had been filed, tt is the allegation of the petitioner that immediately after the order of acquittal had been passed, the opp. party No. 1 reverted back to his earlier position and assumed his original posture of harassment and ill-treatment to the petitioner. Though in effect the learned S. D. J. M. proceeded to acquit opp party No. 1 u/s 248(1),Cr.P.C, yet obviously the background of the order was the compromise between the parties. The order of acquittal was merely a judicial stamp to the compounding of the offence as the offence itself is not compoundable. Since however the agreement itself appears to be a fake one and was brought into existence merely tor the purpose of securing acquittal in the case of non-compoundable offence, I find non-prosecution of the case by the prosecution was not warranted. This is not to say that in every case where acquittal is ordered because of non-prosecution of the case, the order has to be recalled at the instance of the informant merely because he complains of the agreement being a sham and a fake one. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Here in this case it appears that the opp, party No. 1 backed out from the agreement when the acquittal was procured and again started ill-treating the petitioner. 3. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Here in this case it appears that the opp, party No. 1 backed out from the agreement when the acquittal was procured and again started ill-treating the petitioner. 3. In that view of the matter, I find manifest injustice to have been caused to the petitioner in the case and the process of the Court to have been utilised in oblique manner to secure an acquittal which was otherwise not due though of course the guilt or otherwise of opp. party No. 1 was to have been established on the evidence led. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the SDJM in G. R. Case No. 211 of 1987 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court who shall continue with the trial of the case from stage of filing of the Memo, by the APP of no further evidence after issuing notice to the State. The State is also directed to produce all necessary evidence in accordance with the result of the investigation and bring the case to a conclusion.