IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36939 of 2007 1. MONAWWAR ALAM MALLICK @ MONAWWER ALAM @ MD. MONAWWER ALAM. 2. QAISER ALAM MALLICK @ MD. QAISER ALAM. BOTH SONS OF IDRIS MALLICK @ MD. IDRIS MALLICK. 3. NISHA ALAM @ MUNNI BEGUM, W/O MD. NAYER ALAM. 4. GAUSI @ FIRDAUS PARVEEEN, D/O MD. IDRIS MALLICK @ MD. IDRIS MALLICK. 5. TAYABBA KHATOON @ TABBAN, W/O MD. IDRIS MALLICK @ IDRIS MALLICK. ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA-MALLICK TOLA KHANKHA, DISTRICT-NALANDA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 24/H/3, DENT MISSION ROAD, P.S. IQBALPUR, KOLKATA-23. 6. GUDDI @ NAZ AFRIN, W/O MAHTAB ALAM. 7. MAHTAB ALAM, S/O MD. AINUL HAQUE. BOTH RESIDENTS OF GATAM SEWAIT, P.S. + DISTRICT- NALANDA. …………………………………………………...…………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHIRIN ALAM, W/O MONAWWAR ALAM MAALLICK @ MONAWWER ALAM @ MD. MONAWWER ALAM AND D/O KHURSHID ANWAR, R/O MOHALLA BHAISASUR, P.S. LAHERI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ……………………………………………….…OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 27.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.Although notice was validly served in person on O.P. No.2, for the reasons best known to her, she has not appeared to contest this application. Mr. Shahi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since a compromise had been reached on terms that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant-wife-O.P. No.2 and out of the - 2 - same, a sum of Rs.75,000/- had already been paid to her and in that view of the matter she has not appeared in this Court nor she has been appearing in the court below. Copies of the compromise petition and for permission to compromise have been appended as Annexures-2 and 3 respectively. Annexures-2 and 3 have been signed by the complainant- wife, Shirin Alam. Since O.P. No.2 has not appeared before this Court and the compromise petition filed in the court below is pending, it would only be just and proper that some of the petitioners will appear in the court below and move for compromise. If the complainant is not available as she is allegedly not appearing in the court below for several dates together, the court below will pass necessary orders in accordance with the compromise petition after verifying the specified amount having been paid to the wife and also taking into consideration that Sections 420 and 323 I.P.C. are compoundable and whether disputes between the husband and wife has been settled amicably on a compromise , the complaint petition being filed an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.becomes compoundable. Gainful reference in this connection may be placed to the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC675. In view of the observations made above, the application is disposed of with the direction to the court below to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made above. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)