JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions filed under section 438, Cr.P.C. arise out of FIR No. 47/96, P.S. Suratgarh pending investigation under sections 490-A & 406, IPC with the Dy. S.F. (Circle Officer) Suratgarh, and hence both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. This FIR was registered on the report of Smt. Hema Taneja, who is married to the petitioner Sameer Taneja, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty as a result of demand of dowry and, lastly, it was also alleged that the valuables and property given by her relations at the time of her marriage being in the entrustment of the accused-petitioners stand criminally misappropriated. The learned Special Judge, dismissed similar petition on 2.4.1997. 3. The learned P.P. opposed these petitions. Mr. Gulshan Kumar, father of Smt. Hema Taneja is also personally present before the Court. The parties had previously sought time for settlement of the marital dispute amicably and consequently they have filed a photocopy of the agreement entered into between Smt. Hema Taneja informant as well as the petitioners. This agreement is taken on record to be treated as part of this order. This is agreed to by Mr. Guishan Kumar and Mr. Kawadia. 4. As a result of this agreement which is duly verified by a Notary, the parties have amicably agreed to dissolve marriage between Smt. Hema @ Neelu and her husband Sameer Taneja and consequently they have agreed to file a joint application for seeking decree of divorce in the competent Court with consent. 5. In the result, both sides have submitted that since the matter has been mutually settled with a view to materialise it, at present, there is no necessity for proceeding further to investigate into the allegations of the FIR pending investigation. It has been further requested, relying on the decision of this Court rendered in Kishore Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 237 , that the FIR so pending may be quashed so that there may not be any hinderance or obstructions in full execution of the agreement entered into between the parties. It has been further requested, relying on the decision of this Court rendered in Kishore Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 237 , that the FIR so pending may be quashed so that there may not be any hinderance or obstructions in full execution of the agreement entered into between the parties. Presently, since this order is limited to disposal of the petitions for anticipatory bail, it is premature to enter into this request since parties have mutually settled the dispute and they have also decided to finally end the marital relationship to seek a divorce decree and, therefore, it is expected that the I0 shall take a due notice of the agreement entered into by the parties and keeping in view the agreement entered into between the parties, the same is not frustrated as a result of final conclusion of the investigation. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is just and fair that the accused-petitioners should not be arrested for any purpose. As a result, without any precedent, these petitions are disposed of with a direction that in case the accused-petitioners appear before the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases of women atrocities, Sri Ganganagar and, at the same time each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 /- undertaking to appear before the same Court as and when ordered to, each of them shall be released on bail. They shall give an undertaking that in case they are required for investigation they shall appear and help in investigation.Bail application allowed. *******