JAYA ROY,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned counsel for the Opposite party no.2.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this application for modification of the order dated 31.01.2012 passed in A.B.A. No. 2608 of 2011 whereby this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit an Account Payee Demand Draft amounting to Rs.7 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs) in the name of the complainant of this case in the Court below and return all the articles come under 'Stree -dhan' to the complainant, and surrender before the court below within the aforesaid period. If the petitioner deposits an Account Payee Demand Draft of the said amount, returns all the aforesaid articles and surrenders before the court below within the aforesaid period, the trial court below will release him on bail on furnishing bail bonds etc. The counsel of the petitioner prays for modification of the aforesaid order and grant reasonable and suitable time for amicable settlement and disolve the entire disputes and furnishing bail bonds in the concerned court below for ends of justice. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner deposited a draft of Rs. 7 Lakhs vide D.D. No. 122735 of S.B.I. in the name of the opposite party no.2 namely Priyanka Deo along with her Stree -dhan with a list specifically stating therein, the name of the articles, on 26.03.2012 in the concerned Court below and to support of his contention a photo copy of the certified copy of the details D.D. and list of 'Stree -dhan' articles is annexed and marked as Annexure -1 in this petition.
(3.) IT is further argued by the counsel of the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 complainant filed an application before the court below stating therein that she has received the Demand Draft but most of the articles are mentioned in the list of the articles and has not been returned, only about 10% of the articles are not mentioned in the list and those articles have been returned and the majority of the articles are still lying with the petitioner. The court below after hearing both the parties by its order dated 26.03.2012 passed the following order: - "Under such facts and circumstances I think that the final compromise did not took place. Hence the permission petition of the accused petitioner is not granted.;