IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.7591 of 2009 Madhwendu Shekhar, S/o-Late Kamla Mishra Madhukar, R/o-Mohalla- Shantipuri (Station Road), Motihari, P.S.-Motihari (T), District-East Champaran. At present residing at-Zellerstrasse-74-70180.Stuttgart, Germany. -Petitioner. VERSUS The State of Bihar -Opposite Party. ----------- 03 28.08.2009 The petitioner is husband and apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No.14 of 2006 instituted under Sections 498(A), 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint has been lodged alleging that the complainant’s sister was married to the petitioner in 2003. The petitioner and his family member then started demanding dowry on the complainant side paying Rs. 50,000/-. Petitioner allegedly agreed to take his wife to Germany but on non-fulfillment thereof she was thrown out and sent back. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that many a times the case was adjourned for the parties to reconcile but the petitioner did not come from Germany for reconciliation. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father was four times Parliamentarian and they come from a respectable family. Petitioner works in Germany. There is no occasion for them to make such petty demands. The true reason is total incompatibility between the parties which laid to this acrimonious litigation. He further submits that by denying anticipatory bail whatever little chance of reconciliation there may be would vanish. - 2 - Mr. K.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and speaking on behalf of the wife submits that she has been mistreated because on non-fulfillment of dowry because her parents could not pay Rs.50,000/- she was returned from Germany. She is ready to live but petitioner is unwilling to keep her. From the arguments as advanced, it is very clear that the real dispute appears to be something totally different. There appears incompatibility because both sides are sufficiently provided. Unfortunately, both sides are in advised as to their action. In my view, asking the petitioner to return to India and surrender in the Court below would only worsen the situation. If incompatibility to such an extent where parties are ready to send each other to Jail, the parties must accept the incompatibility and accept to live separately and peacefully by themselves rather than enter into Court rooms and fight with no useful result for either party. I wish better sense will prevail on the parties. Be that as it may, on petitioner’s appearing before the Court below within four weeks from today the petitioner would be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.14 of 2006, subject to all conditions as laid in Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)