IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14114 of 2009 SHUBHENDU DUTTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 16.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State of Bihar or for O.P.Nos. 2 and 3. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 24.4.2009, 19.8.2009 and 9.9.2009. In fact the whole situation though arising out of a criminal case filed by O.P.No.2 pertaining to an offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was sought to be amicably resolved as has been reproduced in the following part of the order of this Court dated 9.9.2009: “ … … Pursuant thereto, Shubhendu Dutta, Divyundu Datta and Arti Dutta are present personally. It is said that Rina Dutta, sister of the petitioner, who is married and living separately with her husband at Goa, has not been able to appear today. The complainant, Alok Kumar Ghosh and his daughter Pratima Ghosh have also appeared in person. This Court has heard their view 2 grievances against each length both individually as also collectively. It appears that though there are some differences between the elder family member of the two sides but then the husband and the wife, namely, the petitioner and opposite party no.3 are willing to make another attempt for living together under one roof. It has been assured by the petitioner that he will keep his wife, opposite party no.3 with all respect and dignity and the wife, opposite party no.3 has also assured this Court that she will not give any opportunity to the petitioner of being dissatisfied from her own behaviour. Considering the aforementioned assurances on behalf of both the parties and taking specially into account that the petitioner is only on provisional bail, this Court would adjourn the matter for a period of three months. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2 will make arrangement for sending his daughter, opposite party no.3 to the house of the petitioner at Dehradun so that she could start living with her husband at least from 1st of October, 2009. When the opposite party no.3 will reach Dehradun and starts living together with her husband, it will be the 3 responsibility of her husband to look after and safeguard physical, mental and social interest of the opposite party no.3. List this case on 16th of December, 2009 in Chambers at 4.30 P.M. on which day, now only the petitioner and opposite party no.3 are required to remain personally present.” Today Mr. Bikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, appears and submits that though the petitioner was fully prepared to abide by the aforesaid order of this Court dated 9.9.2009 but O.P.No.2 and 3 have not done anything to comply the order of this Court. He further informs this Court that despite an undertaking given by O.P.No.2, the father-in-law of the petitioner, and O.P.No.3, his wife, they did not go to Dehradun and as such, it should now be presumed that the allegation of demand of dowry or torture either physical or mental is an artificial allegation. Mr. Singh, accordingly, presses for confirmation of provisional bail of the petitioner granted vide order of this Court dated 24.4.2009. 4 The absence of the counsel for O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 as also non-appearance in person of O.P.No.3 would make this Court prima facie believe that they are not interested in restoring of the conjugal life of O.P.No.3, the wife, with the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, Shubhendu Dutta, by the order dated 24.4.2009 would be confirmed by the court below in the event the petitioner would appear before the court within a period of one month from today. Counsel for the petitioner in fact would now also seek leave of this Court to file an application for divorce because in his submissions the conduct of O.P.No.2 by itself would make it clear that the petitioner and O.P.No.3 cannot live together under one roof. Such liberty is granted but then keeping in view that O.P.No.3 has been residing at present in Bhojpur District, such divorce petition will be filed by the petitioner only in the Family Court, Bhojpur at Arrah. The divorce petition of course will be decided on its own merit but at an 5 early date and preferably within a period of one year from the date of its filing. The concerned Presiding Officer of the Family Court would not unnecessarily adjourn the proceedings and in fact would proceed on day to day basis so that uncertainty prevailing in the life of the petitioner comes to an end. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Personal appearance of the petitioner is hereby dispensed with. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/