IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1373 of 2010 NEEL KAMAL ANAND, SON OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY, BAHADURPUR WARD NO. 22, NEW PROF. COLONY, P.O. AND P.S. SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT 2 NEW COLLEDGE WALK SN 32 GQ SWNDEN U.K. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SAPNA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI NEEL KAMAL ANAND, RESIDENT OF NEW PROF. COLONY, WARD NO. 22 BAHADURPUR, P.S. SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT SAPNA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SRI VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. GANGSARA, P.S. SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES with Cr.Misc. No.582 of 2010 NEEL KAMAL ANAND, SON OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY, BAHADURPUR WARD NO. 22, NEW PROF. COLONY, P.O. AND P.S. SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT 2 NEW COLLEDGE WALK SN 32 GQ SWNDEN U.K. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SAPNA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI NEEL KAMAL ANAND, RESIDENT OF NEW PROF. COLONY, WARD NO. 22 BAHADURPUR, P.S. SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT SAPNA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SRI VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. GANGSARA, P.S. SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Senior Advocate Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Anir Alam, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. 6 3.3.2010 These applications have been filed for quashing the order dated, 4.1.2010, passed in C.R. No. 909 of 2008/Trial No. 1343 of 2010, by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur by which the Court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to leave the country. Cr. Misc. No. 582 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the order dated, 22.12.2008, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in C.R. No. 909 of 2008/Trial No. 3226 of 2008 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Notices were issued to the parties and they appeared in Chambers on 23.2.2010. On 24.2.2010 the parties met in the 2 Chamber of Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Senior Advocate to try and settle the differences between them. The petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 Sapna Kumari have come to a settlement with respect to the proceedings pending in the matrimonial case as well as the present criminal case. A joint application has been filed by the parties today i.e. on 3.3.2010 setting out the terms and conditions of settlement. Amongst the terms of settlement one of them is that the petitioner and the opposite party will file an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a consent decree of divorce. The parties undertake to file this application within a period of seven days. A draft of the said application signed by both the parties has also been filed in this Court and should be kept on record. The Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna is directed to dispose of the application filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act within a period of three months of the filing of the application. No further terms and conditions should be imposed on behalf of either parties apart from those which has been settled through this joint application dated 3.3.2010. The counsels may append this joint compromise application with the application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for perusal of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. It is obvious that the petitioner would be required to withdraw the divorce case no. 343 of 2008 pending before the Additional Family Court, Patna. 3 In view of what has been stated above, the order dated 04.01.2010 passed in C.R. No. 909 of 2008/T. R. No. 1343 of 2010 is quashed and the petitioner has permission to leave the country. The order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2008 is also hereby quashed and the applications are allowed with the aforesaid directions. The urgent copy may be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party on payment of cost. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)