IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5259 of 2009 ALOK BHUSHAN @ ALOK SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 19.7.2010. Heard Smt. Sanju Singh for petitioner/husband and Smt. Renu Jha for Opposite Parties no.2 and 3 who are the wife and her father respectively. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order directing framing of charges under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I have explained the prognosis of the order to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by making reference to the provisions contained in Chapter 19(B)of the Cr.P.C. with special reference to Sections 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. and after having done that the court is of the view that there could not be any question of quashing the proceeding by quashing the order. However, while hearing the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the wife was very strenuously submitting that the petitioner/husband was keeping the wife away from him at a secluded place away from Mumbai at - 2 - a distance of about 500 kilometers and support so meager to her was extended by the petitioner no.1 Alok Bhushan @ Alok Singh that she could hardly meet her to ends. Being forced by the other circumstances the lady complainant was keeping her only child born out of the wed-lock at her parents’ house. Smt. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was refuting the submissions but these are facts which are generally come out during such hearing and very often require a probe as regards the conduct of the husband, if the plea is of the dispute being compromised. Firstly, I must note down that petitioner no.2 Brij Bihari Bhushan @ Brij Bihari Singh has demised and as such his case will be dropped by the learned trial Judge. However, if the parties are willing to bury the hatchet and re-live as good spouses then this court has no objection if the court below explores the possibilities by calling the two parties, i.e., the petitioner no.1 Alok Bhushan @ Alok Singh and Opposite Party no.2, namely, Jyoti Sinha. The court shall fix a date and explore the possibilities after considering - 3 - the allegations and counter allegations which might be flying in the face of the court. I could advise the learned S.D.J.M., Patna not to be dismayed by facts which might be presented before him in the frayed temper of the parties. The hearing could be very exhausting and it might be frustrating as well and after hearing the same, the court should find out the solution to such matrimonial dispute because it is not only that two couples are fighting it, in facts, ultimately affects the future of the child and, we as responsible citizens have to be very sensitive to this issue by involving ourselves personally. The court believes that the S.D.J.M., Patna has appreciated what the court wants him to do. The court below should sit with the couple in his Chambers and clear the doubts existing in their relationships and try to iron them out the crisis in the relationship so that the marriage moves on smoothly. If the court finds that there is likelihood of the relation coming on track, it may continue with the conciliatory efforts over a period of six months and if it finds that the dispute has finally ended amicably, then it - 4 - could act upon the compromise petition and dispose of the case finally in that light. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )