Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners accused with the prayer to get the impugned summoning order dated 2.4.2010 passed against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti as well as the revisional order dated 16.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti, quashed.

The petitioners are represented by their counsel Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra while the respondent No. 2 Mamunisha is represented by her counsel Sri S.P. Pandey. Both are present in Court.

A short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 which is taken on record.

2. I have heard the counsel for both the sides as well as learned AGA and have perused the whole record.

It appears that the petitioners were summoned by the lower Court under Sections 323, 379, 452, 504, 506 and 427 IPC in complaint case No. 1842/2009 filed by the complainant Mamunisha (respondent No. 2). The revision filed against the summoning order too got dismissed as it was time barred.

A perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. reveal that the complainant’s side as well as the side of the accused (petitioners) had locked their horns because of the marital discord which arose between the complainant’s son Mohd.Aslam (husband) and his wife Amirunnisha. The mutual bickerings of the married couple escalated and engulfed the other members of the family also. This unfortunate bad blood between the two families resulted in a number of litigations between them. The present complaint in question giving rise to this petition is also an offshoot of the same marital dispute and nuptial disharmony.

3. The petitioner’s counsel has submitted that through the good offices of some relatives both the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute amicably and have already advanced in this direction substantially resulting in the compromise of other cases which were pending between them at different judicial forums. The counsel for the respondent also has brought my attention to the short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 who is none else but the complainant of the complaint case in question wherein the impugned orders under challenge have been passed. It has been averred by the respondent No. 2 in her affidavit that a criminal case No. 468 of 2007 under Section 147, 323, 504, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Walterganj District Basti was filed by her daughter in law against her in laws. Apart from this a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was also filed by her daughter in law against her husband. Both these cases have been compromised between the parties. In support of the same Annexures-CA-1 and Annexure-C.A.2 have been annexed alongwith short counter-affidavit.. A perusal of Annexure-CA-1 reveals that it is a joint application filed on behalf of the complainant of that case Amirun Nisha as well as by five accused persons of that cases in the concerned Court with the submissions that both the parties have entered into a mutual compromise and various terms regarding the maintenance amount as well as their decision to put an end to all the litigations have been settled in between them. The application also reveals the mutual agreement that the present writ petition should also be disposed of in the light of the compromise to which Mamunisha respondent No. 2 shall have no objection. Another Annexure-CA-2 is the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the CJM Sant Kabir Nagar inCrl.Misc.Case No. 75/11/2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the order reveals that the maintenance case filed by Smt.Amirunnisha has also been decided in terms of the compromise arrived between husband and wife and the same was dismissed in mutual agreement as the lump sum amount of maintenance has been accepted by the wife and the decision to live separately and part their ways had been arrived at between the parties with agreement.

4. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the short counter-affidavit filed on