Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. A complaint was filed by Paramjit Kaur against her husband Pawan Kumar and her mother-in-law Shanti Devi under Section 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After trial learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon vide judgment dated January 31, 1989 found Pawan Kumar guilty under section 406/489-A I.P.C. and Shanti Devi guilty only, under section 498-A I.P.C. They were both sentenced to imprisonment to various terms. 2. In appeal learned Additional, Sessions Judge on December 6, 1989 accepted the appeal of Shanti Devi and acquitted her altogether but Pawan Kumars conviction under Section 406 I.P.C. was maintained although his conviction under section 498-A I.P.C. was set aside. 3. Pawan Kumar filed this revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence. The petition was admitted on December 13, 1989. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the revision petition the marriage between Pawan Kumar and Paramjit Kaur was dissolved by mutual consent and parties had also reached a settlement with regard to a petition which had been filed by Paramjit Kaur under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint under sections 406/498-A I.P.C. which is subject of this petition. It had been agreed that the entire litigation pending before the filing of the petition for divorce would be withdrawn. In terms thereof, the criminal revision No. 667 of 1990 filed by Paramjit Kaur against the acquittal of Pawan Kumar and Shanti Devi under section 498-A I.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn P.I. The factum of withdrawal of the cases filed by the parties against each other in terms of the mutual agreement seeking divorce is mentioned in the judgment of the learned District Judge. Ludhiana dated August 11, 1993 copy of which is Annexure P.2. the above conclusively establishes that the parties had indeed settled the matter. Certified copy of the statement of Paramjit Kaur dated August 11, 1993 recorded before the District Judge in the divorce case has also been placed on record. Therein Paramjit Kaur categorically stated that she had no claim in respect of dowry or maintenance and claim for permanent alimony had been satisfied. 5. In view of the fact that the parties have compromised and final settlement had been reached, this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Petition is accepted and the conviction of the petitioner is quashed.