IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10918 of 2010 Vinay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Kumar, son of Bajrangi Singh, Resident of Village- Jamuawan, P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad ……………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sheo Govind Singh, son of Late Dargahi Singh, resident of Village- Dedhawa, P.S. Upahar, District-Aurangabad. 3. Rita Devi, wife of Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Jamuawan, P.S. Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. At present reside with her father namely Sheo Govind Singh, at Village- Dedhawa, P.S. Upahar, District-Aurangabad. …….Opposite Parties. For O.P. No. 2 and 3 :- Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.6,Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Dinesh Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 07. 05. 2010. Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner is the husband of one Rita Devi, daughter of the complainant. In the complaint petition, there is allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash as also torture upon the alleged victim. When the matter was heard on 22. 04. 2010, a common plea was taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, who are father and daughter respectively, that there are still possibilities of settlement of the entire dispute between the parties. For last three days the matter is being heard by this Court and on one plea or the other, the case was being adjourned at the instance of the parties, but the facts remained that despite opportunities, 2 compromise petition, either for restoration of matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and O.P. No. 3 (wife) or for one time settlement of the entire disputes between the parties, has not been filed. When the matter has been taken up today for final disposal of this case, in compliance of the order dated 22. 04. 2010, the petitioner as also the complainant (O.P.No.2) along with his daughter (O.P.No.3)-alleged victim lady are physically present in the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsels. During the course of hearing also both parties have adopted rigid stand and this Court finds that parties are not prepared to enter into any agreement for settlement of the dispute. In that view of the matter this Court has no option but to hear the matter on merit. Apparently petitioner is the husband of the alleged victim and he was solely responsible for well being of his wife (O.P.No.3). In the complaint petition there are allegations of demand of dowry and torture against him. In that view of the matter, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner must surrender in the court below in connection with Complaint Case No. 69/09, Tr. No. 845/09 within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. However, liberty is granted to the parties that they may still enter into an agreement either for restoration of matrimonial relationship or for one time settlement. If such agreement is arrived 3 at then they may approach the learned Magistrate by filing a petition and the learned Magistrate would be obliged to decide the case in terms of compromise. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)