JUDGMENT IA Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, and Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party. By this common order, Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 735 of 2004 and 640 of 2005 are being disposed of for the reasons, which are recorded as under: (i) During pendency of FC (Civil) Suit No. 14 of 2007, in the learned Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati, which had arisen out of a petition seeking a decree of divorce of the marriage of the petitioner, namely, Kajal Dev, with his wife, Smti Monisha Sen Dev, an application, seeking transfer of the said divorce suit from the Family Court, Kamrup, to the Family Court, at Silchar, was made by Smti Monisha Sen Dev aforementioned. This transfer petition gave rise to Transfer Petition (C) No. 4 of 2007. (ii) While the transfer petition was pending, amicable settlement was reached between the parties concerned, whereby the parties concerned, having realized that their matrimonial-tie had irrevocably broken down, filed a joint petition, in the said transfer petition, to the effect, inter alia, that they would take necessary steps to get the Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2004, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar) Cachar, Silchar, stood quashed, because sustainability of the said complaint case already stood challenged in Criminal Revision P. No. 235 of 2004. In their transfer petition, the parties concerned also undertook to get the order, dated 13-07-2005, passed in MR Case No. 112 of 2004, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., set aside inasmuch as the order, dated 13-07-2005, aforementioned, granting maintenance already stood challenged in Criminal Revision No. 640 of 2005. (iii) In terms of the agreement, which have been so reached between the parties concerned, it is, now, submitted, on their behalf, by the learned counsel that both these revisions be disposed of. 2. In support of their above submission that such a course of action is permissible in law, learned counsel for the parties concerned rely on the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another ( AIR 2003 SC 1386 ). 3. 2. In support of their above submission that such a course of action is permissible in law, learned counsel for the parties concerned rely on the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another ( AIR 2003 SC 1386 ). 3. Considering the fact that during the pendency of the present two revisions, the decree of divorce, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, has already been granted in the suit aforementioned, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice and within the ambit of the powers of this Court to set aside and quash the Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2004 aforementioned and also the impugned order, dated 13-07-2005, aforementioned, whereby maintenance had been directed to be paid by the husband to the wife. 4. Situated thus, this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., set aside and quash the complaint, in question, which given rise to Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2004 and also the order, dated 24-08-2004, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Cachar, Silchar, whereby processes were directed to be issued against the accused, who are named in the said complaint, and also the order, dated 13-07-2005, aforementioned, whereby maintenance had been granted, as indicated above. 5. In view of the directions, which have been passed above, both these criminal revision petitions, namely, Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 735 of 2004 and 640 of 2005 do not survive for adjudication/ determination and, hence, both these revisions shall accordingly stand disposed of. 6. With the above observations and directions, these revision petitions shall stand disposed of. Send back the LCR.