IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2233 of 2007 1.MD. CHAND Son of Md. Shamim 2. Md. Shamim, Son of Late Md. Yunus Both resident of Islampur, Police Station- Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur --------------------Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Farzana Kaushar, Wife of Md. Sajjad, Resident of Dr. Azaji Marg, Tilak Maidan Road, Police Station- Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur 3. Shahin D/o Md. Sajjad Alam, Resident of Dr. Azaji Marg, Tilak Maidan Road, P.S. Town District- Muzaffarpur ---------------------Opposite Parties With Cr.Misc. No.2234 of 2007 1. MD. SHAMIM, Son of Late Md. Yunush, 2. Afrozi Begum, Wife of Md. Shamim, Resident of Mohalla- Islampur, Police Station- Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur -------------------------Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shahin D/o Md. Sajjad Alam, Resident of Dr. Azaji Marg, Tilak Maidan Road, Police Station- Town, District- Muzaffarpur ---------------------Opposite Parties ---------------------- 18. 25.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party. These applications have been filed for quashing the order of cognizance under Section 498A, 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the husband and the members of the husband family on account of demand of dowry have been torturing the opposite party no. 2. Examination of the witnesses was made under Section 202 and after examination of the witnesses it appears that the entire family has been pressuring the opposite party no. 2 to pay some amount by way of dowry. - 2 - Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that during settlement proceedings in my Chamber, the opposite party was willing to accept lump-sum of money by way of maintenance and payment of dowry. This Court fixed the date on 15.1.2009 for consideration of this aspect of the matter. On that day nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners to press the case. In any event, the Court granted further time and fixed the date on 21.1.2009, the matter was taken up on 28.1.2009. In the meantime, the petitioners had addressed a letter directly to the Court requesting the Court to grant him time on the ground that his father has fractured his leg. The Court thus extended the time till 12th February 2009 and the matter was to be heard in Chambers again. On 12th February 2009 again the petitioner did not appear in the Court to settle and compromise the matters in order to avoid further litigation. The matter has been running on the list for the past two weeks, on Wednesday, which is the day fixed for the tied up matters. However, it has not been taken up for one or the other reason. Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits before the Court, obviously without any instruction that the petitioner is ready to settle the matter and make one time settlement in favour of his wife in view of the fact that there should be divorce by consent between the parties as permissibly under the Mohammadan Law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party on the other hand submits that the offer of the petitioner Md. Chand is - 3 - only to delay the matter as would appear from the order sheet of this case. The order sheet would reveal that the matter is running for settlement since May,2008 and Md. Chand and his family has been avoiding the Court in order to delay the trial under Section 498A. In any event prima facie, this Court finds that there are allegations against the petitioners in the two applications and as such no case is made out for quashing of the order of cognizance. These applications are, accordingly, dismissed. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)