IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8411 of 2008 PRACHI DEVA @ PRACHI GOYAL @ PRACHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with Cri.Misc.No.13195 of 2008 Rohit Goyal vs. The State of Bihar & anr. For the petitioner: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate. For the O.P.s : Mr. A.K.Ojha, Advocate. 12 12.8.2009 Both Cri.Misc. cases are taken up together. Petitioner, Prachi Deva @ Prachi Goyal @ Prachi, filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No.3055C/06 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which was subsequently transferred to the court of S.D.J.M., Patna for disposal . The complaint was filed under sections 498A, 120B and 323 of the I.P.C. against her husband Rohit Goyal and other in-laws. However, summons were issued to Rohit Goyal and his parents. Rohit Goyal filed anticipatory bail application vide Cr.Misc. No.35471 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2007 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the basis of conciliation arrived between the parties on four major issues. The Ist issue relates to payment of lump sum amount by the petitioner to the complainant, Prachi Goyal, to enable her to sustain herself and to provide good education to her son, Pratik Goyal. The second issue related to visiting right of the petitioner and his parents in respect of the child. The third issue related to custody of the child, and the fourth issue relates to withdrawal of cases,the complaint case filed by complainant and matrimonial matrimonial case filed by the accused Rohit Goyal at Gurgaon. 2 It would be relevant to point out here that the accused Rohit Goyal had agreed to pay Rs.13/- lacs by 1.9.2012 in different installments. Rohit Goyal has now pleaded that he could not keep the installment schedule of payment as he suffered from paralysis and brain stroke suffered in first week of March,2008. The accused Rohit Goyal filed an application for modification of the aforesaid order in respect to the payment of Rs.13/- lacs under section 482 of Cr.P.C.. On the other hand, Prachi Deva filed an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no.2 for non-observance of the terms and conditions of settlement. This case was heard on different dates. Both the parties expressed before this Court that it was not possible to continue with the marital life and pleaded expeditious disposal of the divorce suit at Patna. The divorce suit has finally been concluded by way of compromise decree. Both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 state that as withdrawal application in respect of criminal case has been filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Patna the same may be disposed of expeditiously. The S.D.J.M., Patna, or the court in seisin of the case would dispose of the Complaint Case No.3055C/06 preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, it would be open for the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2, Rohit Goyal, to submit necessary documents before 3 the learned court that he is suffering from paralytic attack. It further appears that Prachi Deva has filed a petition under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Judge, Allahabad, for continuing custody of the child, as Rohit Goyal did not keep his assurance of promise made before this Court. The parties would be at liberty to agitate the matter regarding custody of child before Allahabad Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these applications stand consigned. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)