SANTOSH KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

The matter was first heard on 2nd June, 2009 and this Court summoned the parties to be present in chambers. There is also a matrimonial case being Title Matrimonial Suit No. 182 of 2008 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. All the aforesaid persons have also file Criminal Misc. No. 49736 of 2008 for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Khajauli (Kaluahi) Police Station Case No. 106 of 2008. During the pendency of the anticipatory bail applications, the parties agreed to live separately and filed a joint compromise petition before this Court. The terms of the compromise are being quoted below:- “3. That in the aforesaid backdrop present compromise have been arrived at between the parties on the following terms and conditions. (a) Husband Santosh Kumar Chaudhary or his father Sri Uttim Lal Chaudhary will make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs) by cheques towards the settlement amount either in the name of Punita Devi 3 or in name of her full elder brother Sri Manoj Kumar Chaudhary. The aforesaid amount is being paid by a cheques bearing No. 413552 dated 12.05.2009 of State Bank of India, Bhelatand issued by Sri Uttim Lal Chaudhary in the name of Sri Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, the full elder brother of the Opposite Party No. 2, Punita Devi. (b) It has also been agreed that Sri Uttim Lal Chaudhary will return the golden ornaments and all other belongings including furniture, utensils etc., which were given to Opposite Party No. 2 at the time of marriage. The golden ornaments are being returned to Opposite Party No. 2 in the Court itself to her satisfaction. The furniture, utensils and other articles, if any, shall be returned within one week to the Opposite Party No. 2. (c) In view of the aforesaid compromise, Title Matrimonial Suit No. 182 of 2008 (Santosh Kumar Chaudhary vs. Punita Devi) pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad may be directed to be disposed of by granting decree of divorce on consent. Both sides shall file a joint compromise petition on the date fixed or at any early convenient date. (d) In the present aforesaid two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, the petitioners may be granted privilege of anticipatory bail 4 by the order of this Hon’ble Court and thereafter the main Criminal case i.e. Khajauli (Kaluahi) Police Station Case No. 106 of 2008 dated 02.05.2008 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani may also be quashed. (e) In view of the aforesaid compromise and separation between Santosh Kumar Chaudhary and Punita Devi, now they shall be free to solemnize their marriage, if they so decide.” As per the compromise petition, the cheque towards the settlement was paid in Court and the gold ornaments were also returned to Punita Devi and her brother who were present in the Court room. In view of the facts that the parties have compromised the matter, they do not want to continue with any criminal case pending between them and as such this Court is quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Khajauli (Kaluahi) Police Station Case No. 106 of 2008. This Court cannot pass or give any direction with respect to Title Matrimonial Case No. 182 of 2008 since the same is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Dhanbad (Jharkhand). But the parties are directed to file an application under Section 5 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act along with a copy of this order stating all the facts as mentioned in the compromise petition filed before this Court before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Dhanbad and it is hoped that the court will grant a decree of divorce expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months incorporating the terms of compromise in the Divorce Decree. In the alternative, the parties also have the leave to file a joint compromise petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act within the jurisdiction of Bihar. If such a petition mentioning the facts that Rs. Two lacs has already been paid to Punita Devi towards one time settlement before this Court, the Court below is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of filing of the petition incorporating the terms of compromise in the decree of divorce. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. No. 49736 of 2008 is allowed. As a result of the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, the anticipatory bail applications have become infructuous as the criminal case has been quashed by this Court. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )