ORDER : Shri H. K. Shukla, counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. Since the matter is old and stay order has been passed on 30-8-2012, matter may not be adjourned in absence of learned counsel for the respondents, hence, considered the revision filed by the applicant. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that a criminal complaint was pending before the JMFC, Gwalior at registration No. 1398/2006. Complaint was filed by the applicant Visambhar Dayal Rastogi. During the pendency of the complaint, the applicant - Visambhar Dayal has filed an application for compromise but matter was also listed in the Lok Adalat but no compromise took place. On 31-10-2011 the complainant has submitted an application that he does not want to enter into a compromise and, therefore, the JMFC, vide order dated 19-3-2012 dismissed the application for compromise. A revision was filed by the respondents and vide order dated 26-7-2012 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, the order passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the trial Court was directed to decide the compromise application afresh on the basis of its merits. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 26-7-2012, the present revision is filed. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that initially the complainant has filed an application for compromise but before that application could be decided, he had withdrawn the application and, therefore, the Magistrate has dismissed the compromise application. It was also mentioned by the Magistrate that the offence under section 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code was compoundable with permission of the Court and since no application was moved to seek permission, such compromise could not be accepted. If compromise would have been accepted then the complainant could not withdraw the same but at the time of recording of the compromise and to accept it, it is for the Court to consider free consent of the parties. When the complainant had withdrawn his application by filing a fresh application that he does not want to enter into the compromise then the application is rightly decided by the trial Court and rightly dismissed the same. If parties are interested to do any compromise then a fresh application can be filed because it is not barred for hearing. When the complainant had withdrawn his application by filing a fresh application that he does not want to enter into the compromise then the application is rightly decided by the trial Court and rightly dismissed the same. If parties are interested to do any compromise then a fresh application can be filed because it is not barred for hearing. Hence, the revisionary Court has committed an error to remand the matter to decide the application of compromise afresh. Such order was beyond the jurisdiction of revisionary Court. Hence, the impugned order has been passed by the revisionary Court beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, it cannot be affirmed. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant - Visambhar Dayal Rastogi is hereby disposed off with the direction that order dated 26-7-2012 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior is hereby set aside but order dated 19-3-2012 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior is affirmed. Parties would be free to compromise in future, if they want to do so. 6. In the present case, interim stay order dated 30-8-2012 has been passed, which is hereby vacated. 7. Copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information with the direction that trial Court shall proceed with the complaint case.