IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2242 of 2010 1. PRIYARANJAN @ LADDU @ PRIYARANJAN KUMAR, son of late Bishwanath Prasad Gupta 2. Kuwar Geeta Devi @ Geeta Devi, wife of late Bishwanath Prasad Gupta 3. Rajan Prasad Gupta @ Rajan Kumar, son of late Bishwanath Prasad Gupta 4. Neelam Devi, wife of Rajan Prasad Gupta 5. Alok Prasad Gupta @ Alok Kumar, son of late Bishwanath Prasad Gupta 6. Madhu Devi, wife of Alok Prasad Gupta, all residents of Mohalla Daldali Bazar, P.S. Chapra Town, District Saran Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 26.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the complainant. The petitioners seeking anticipatory bail for offence u/s 120B, 427, 420 I.P.C. have a plain and simple defence that the girl side belonging to the complainant and his family members in fact had duped the petitioners side bridegroom by projecting a rosy picture about the family of the bride whereas it could be found that the entire family of the bridegroom was accused in a criminal case. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that in such a situation one can hardly believe that the offence under section 420 I.P.C. was committed only 2 because the groom side including the petitioners ultimately backed out from the marriage with a girl who herself as also her other family members were facing criminal prosecution for offence u/s 307 and other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel however fairly submits that he has instructions of the petitioners and the other accused family members that they are prepared for an out of court settlement and would pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the value of the gifts both in cash and/or kind received at the time of engagement if the complainant would withdraw his complaint case, even though such expenses would not exceed a sum of Rs. 50000/- at best. Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, would submit that there is no scope for making all these wild allegations against the complainant and his other family members inasmuch as a F.I.R. is not an order of conviction on the basis which it can be inferred that the entire family of the complainant had any criminal or dubious past. He has also placed certain materials 3 which would go to show that the negotiation had proceeded to an advanced stage and in fact had also materialized to the extent that even engagement was made and gifts in form of kind and/or cash were exchanged. He accordingly would submit that the mental agony and humiliation of the girl and ignominy faced by the family members of the girl should also be taken into account while deciding such cases for grant of anticipatory bail. He too however is not a verse to the settlement outside the court as proposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner though the said amount spent by way of expenditure would exceed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the opinion of this Court such submissions would not require any findings in view of the proposed compromise. This court must applaud the sincere effort of the learned counsel for both the parties in resolving the uncessary and meaningless dispute. Infact an avoidable litigation would come to an end by such compromise which would also be in the interest of both the parties. This Court therefore for 4 meeting the ends of justice would direct for closure of the complaint case itself on paymnt of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioners and their accused family members to the complainant specially when the Counsel for the complainant has informed this Court that after accepting a sum of Rs. 1 lac the complainant will withdraw the complaint case itself. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the moment a sum of Rs. 1 lac will be paid in the name of the complainant by the petitioners and/or other accused family members of the petitioners by producing a Bank draft in the name of the complainant in the court below for its handed over to the complainant, the proceedings of the complaint case shall be closed. Such exercise however must be completed within a period of eight weeks from today so that the miseries of both the family in contesting meaningless litigation comes to an end at an early date. In the light of the aforementioned directions, if the abovenamed petitioners surrender in the court of the Judicial 5 Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra within a period of eight weeks from today and produce a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 1 lac in the name of the complainant for its being handed over to the complainant, they would be released on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in Trial No. 1996/2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. 4007/2008 to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Saran at Chhapra. It is also made clear that upon grant of bail to the petitioners in the manner indicated above, the parties will also file a joint compromise petition in terms of this order whereafter the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case no. 4007/2008 shall also be closed for once and ever. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/