This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in Crl.A.No.15 of 2011 by the District and Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram dated 05.08.2011, which in turn confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur in C.C.No.2 of 2007, dated 25.02.2011.

2. The petitioners stood trial for a charge under Section 498 (A) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were convicted after being found guilty and were sentenced by the Trial Court to under go six months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, for the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC and were further sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentence was directed to run concurrently. On Appeal the Appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court but however modified the sentence insofar as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to the extent that the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment was set aside and the sentence of payment of fine imposed on the 2nd and 3rd petitioners was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision before this Court.

3. The 1st petitioner is the husband, the 2nd petitioner is the father-in-law and the 3rd petitioner is the mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant-wife. This Court by an order dated 17.08.2011 made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment alone by imposing some conditions.

4. When this Criminal Revision came up for hearing on 19.04.2018, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the dispute between the de-facto complainant-wife and the revision petitioners has been settled. Recording the said submissions, this Court directed the parties to be present before the Court on 27.04.2018. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 27.04.2018, the parties were not present before the Court and therefore the matter was adjourned to 08.06.2018.

5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 08.06.2018, the 1st petitioner husband and the de-facto complainant-wife were present before the Court and they through their counsel jointly filed a Memorandum of Compromise. This Court personally enquired the husband and wife as to the present status of their relationship and both of them informed this Court that on the intervention of the elders of the family and considering the welfare of both the families, both of them decided to bury the hatchet and are living in a peaceful and happy life from the year 2012 onwards. It was informed to the Court that from the year 2012 till date they have been living as husband and wife happily without any complaints. The same stand was reiterated by them in the Memorandum of Compromise that was filed before the Court and it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the parties have settled the matter amicably outside the Court, the revision may be allowed by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant-wife got married on 11.09.2002 as per the Hindu Marriage and Custom and that during the marriage the de-facto complainant-wife was given 15 sovereign of gold jewellery and the 1st petitioner was given 2 sovereign of gold jewellery and that after two years of marriage, the petitioners started demanding a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only] in lieu of a two wheeler that was promised to be given to the 1st petitioner at the time of marriage and the de-facto complainant-wife was subjected to cruelty by forcing her to bring the said amount from her parents. It is based on these facts, a Final Report was filed by the police along with the sta