IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43162 of 2007 1. Satyendra Paswan, Son of Birendra Paswan. 2. Birendra Paswan 2 Birendra Binda Paswan, Son of Late Yogeshar Paswan. 3. Sumitra Devi, W/o Birendra Paswan. 4. Meena Devi, D/o Birendra Paswan. 5. Devi Devi, W/o Ranjeet Paswan. 6. Ranjeet Paswan, Son of Bengali Paswan. All resident of village Khorsharia, Police Station Nagarnousa, District Nalanda. 7. Shushila Devi, W/o Yogendra Paswan. 8. Yogendra Paswan, S/o Balgovind Paswan. Both resident of village Said Barhi, Police Station Chandi, District Nalanda. 9. Bebi Kumari, D/o Krishna Paswan. 10. Ramesh Paswan, S/o Krishna Paswan. 11. Rajesh Paswan, S/o Krishna Paswan. 12. Sanju Paswan, S/o Krishna Paswan. 13. Krishna Paswan, son of Late Prabhu Paswan. 14. Babu Lal Paswan, son of Late Prabhu Paswan. 15. Sugia Devi, W/o Krishna Paswan. 16. Fulwa Devi, W/o Babu Lal Paswan. 17. Second Wife of Babu Lal Paswan, name not known. All resident of Village Korawan, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. ------------ Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Rinku Devi, W/o Raj Kumar Paswan, Resident of Village Kamta, Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda. -------------- Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Bindh Keshri Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 :- Mr. Purnendu Nr. Singh, Adv. ---------- 5 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Today, when the husband, namely, Shailendra Paswan and the wife, namely, Rinku Devi have appeared in person in compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 2.4.2010, Mr. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the 2 petitioners, would take a plea that as there is an order of this Court dated 25.8.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 30495 giving liberty to the husband for giving any proposal for settlement in the court below, he would submit that the settlement proposed in this case should also be allowed to proceed in the court below. He has also submitted that some sort of settlement has already been arrived at in the light of which a payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- was also made to the wife-opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, however, has vehemently denied this fact as also with regard to entering some sort of compromise as was sought to be contemplated under the aegis of this Court in the present case. He would further submit that the compromise with regard to the payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- was in relation to the only one particular case and not as a whole. In the opinion of this Court, when the mutual amicable settlement as proposed by the petitioners is not in sight, and the husband and other relatives being the petitioners of this case are desirous of settling the matter only in 3 the court below, this Court would not like to put any express opinion with regard to the aforementioned conduct of the parties. Such settlement always proceed on an unconditional acceptance and therefore, all that this Court can say that the prosecution against the petitioners which otherwise is substantiated by the allegations as already recorded in the order dated 25.8.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 30495 of 2007 could be stopped in the midway only if both the parties agreed to some sort of respectable mutually accepted arrangement. For the moment, this Court would only reiterate what was said earlier in the case of the husband by an order dated 25.8.2009 which reads as follows:- “Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for opposite party no. 2. There would be hardly any ground for this Court to quash the criminal proceedings only because the complainant, opposite party no. 2 had earlier also filed a case and the petitioner, husband had thereafter filed a divorce case which was again sought to be answered by the opposite party no. 2 by filing a maintenance case. Merely because these litigations are pending would not give reprieve to the petitioner, husband to get married in the life time of first 4 wife, opposite party no2. Therefore, if the complainant, opposite party no. 2 has made certain allegations which constitute an offence the court below has not committed any legality in taking cognizance. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner, husband would submit that the petitioner would like to get all the disputes settled by giving a proposal for settlement of such disputes with his wife, opposite party no.2. If that being so, it would be open for this petitioner to give such proposal in the court below and if the court below would find such proposal to be acceptable by the complainant, opposite party no. 2, it would take steps for disposal of all such cases in the light of agreed terms and conditions. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of.” Recording the aforementioned order, this application is also disposed of leaving the parties to their own fate and their own decision that they would like to take for themselves in future. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)