ORDER By the Court.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.7.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 198 of 2010, whereby the appeal flied against the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17.8.2010 passed in G.R. Case No. 92 of 2005/T.R. No. 255 of 2010, by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have been dismissed by the appellate Court below. 3. I.A. No. 2502 of 2013 has been flied in the case stating that the case has since been compromised between the parties outside the Court and both the parties are living together and accordingly the dispute between the parties being a matrimonial dispute, the compromise between the parties be accepted. 4. Cr. M.P. No. 28 of 2013 has been flied by the petitioners for exemption from surrendering in the Court below, in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 is present in the Court and she accepts the compromise between the parties and has also accepted that she is now living with her husband. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties was absolutely a matrimonial dispute, which has since been settled outside the Court and accordingly, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the compromise between the parties may be accepted in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr PC, and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners may be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2 has also supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that in view of the fact that cordial relationship has been established between the parties, it would be appropriate to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr PC, in the present case. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2 has also supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that in view of the fact that cordial relationship has been established between the parties, it would be appropriate to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr PC, in the present case. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both the parties and in view of the fact that the dispute between the parties is absolutely a matrimonial dispute, which has since been compromised between the parties outside the Court and both the parties are now living together, I am of the considered view that it would be in the interest of both the parties to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr PC, in the present case, for their peaceful matrimonial life and in the interest of justice. Accordingly, taking cue from the decision of B.S. Joshi's case (supra), the compromise between the parties is, hereby, accepted. 9. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.8.2010 passed by Sri Kumar Pawan, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R Case No. 92 of 2005/T.R No. 255 of 2010, as also the judgment dated 24.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 198 of 2010 are, hereby, set aside on the basis of the compromise between the parties. Consequently, the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. The petitioners are on bail and they are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 10. This revision application, the aforesaid interlocutory application and criminal miscellaneous petition, are accordingly, allowed. Applications allowed.