JUDGMENT : HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 401/397 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC against the judgment and order, dated 27.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Lakhimpur in Criminal Appeal No. 13(3)/2009 upholding the judgment and order, dated 24.08.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Dhakuakhana, Lakhimpur in GR Case No. 79/2005. 2. I have heard Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner as well as Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1. 3. I have perused the petition as well as the annexures annexed therewith including the impugned judgments. 4. The fact leading to the case is that, an FIR was lodged by Smti Satya Prava Pagag (Doley) with the Ghilamara Police Station alleging that she was married to the accused-revision petitioner, Sri Jadu Nath Doley in the year 2000 and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife and they also parented a female child out of their wedlock. But, after some months of their marriage, the accused-revision petitioner started demanding dowry from her and due to her failure to meet such unlawful demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the accused-revision petitioner. She was also assaulted by the accused-revision petitioner. There was an attempt for reconciliation made by the elderly people of the area which failed. 5. It is also alleged that out of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh demanded by the accused-revision petitioner, the parents of the victim-respondent No. 2 paid an amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the accused-revision petitioner and due to failure to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- the victim-respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental torture. 6. On receipt of the FIR on the above facts, the Ghilamara Police Station registered a case, being Ghilamara Police Station Case No. 25/2005, under Section 498(A) of the IPC, investigated into it and on completion of the investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the accused-revision petitioner under Sections 498(A)/325 of the IPC. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses and the defence examined none. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC the accused-revision petitioner denied the allegations made against him. 8. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses and the defence examined none. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC the accused-revision petitioner denied the allegations made against him. 8. The learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner has submitted that the parties, i.e. the revision petitioner-husband and the respondent No. 2-wife have sworn in a joint affidavit to the effect that they have compromised the matter between them and they are living as husband and wife together under the same roof now, and therefore, they pray for disposal of the matter on being mutual settlement. 9. The learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taslima Nasreen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 6 SCC 465 . He has specifically referred to paragraph 29.4 of the said decision and stressed upon that the dispute between the parties, i.e. the accused petitioner-husband and respondent No. 2-wife was matrimonial in nature, and therefore, as they have resolved their dispute among themselves, the present revision petition be disposed of in the light of such fact instead of going into the merit of the case. 10. It is a fact that both the accused-revision petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are husband and wife and they have settled the matter and to that effect they have filed an affidavit before this Court, vide an affidavit-in-opposition filed by the present accused-revision petitioner on 29.03.2017 annexing therewith the affidavit sworn in by them before the notary. 11. Since this Court is convinced that both the parties have settled the matter amongst themselves, and the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute, and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this revision petition is allowed. The accused- revision petitioner is acquitted forthwith. 12. It deserves to be mentioned herein that the matter has not been disposed of on merit and rather it has been disposed of on the settlement arrived at between the parties being the dispute is matrimonial in nature and both the parties have resumed their conjugal life under the same roof. 13. Send down the LCR.