Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 112.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 546/2005, whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323, IPC. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/Non-petitioner No. 2 has filed an application before the police that she has received her articles and also compromised the matter with the petitioner. He has shown me a copy of the application filed by the complainant/non-petitioner No. 2 before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahila Thana, Pali in Crime Report No. 23 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323, IPC on 11.04.2005, whereby it has been stated that whatever the dowry articles, as per the list given by her, have been received by her from the petitioner and, therefore, no further article is required to be recovered from the petitioner. She has also stated that she has compromised the matter with the petitioner and the compromise was also filed by the complainant/Non-petitioner No. 2 before the trial Court on 11.04.2005 stating therein that on being persuaded by the respectable persons of the community, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner and she requested the trial Court to verify the compromise. 4. From the applications filed by the complainant/Non-petitioner No. 2 before the police and the trial Court, it appears that the complainant has compromised the matter. Since, no effective order has been passed by the trial Court on both these applications, therefore, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the trial Court to pass a fresh order. So far as the offence under Section 323, IPC is concerned, the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, keeping in view the two applications filed by the complainant, which are prior in time to that of the order impugned framing the charge. So far as the offence under Section 323, IPC is concerned, the offence is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, keeping in view the two applications filed by the complainant, which are prior in time to that of the order impugned framing the charge. Thus, it appears that at the time of framing the charge, the trial Court has not applied judicial mind on the material facts placed before it on record and, therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 112.2005 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 546/2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to pass fresh orders on the applications filed by the complainant/Non-petitioner No. 2. The stay petition also stands disposed of