ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. By the impugned order, when accused persons moved the High Court in a writ petition for quashing their prosecution under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 307 and 504 of the Penal Code besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court was of the view that it was not a fit case for quashing the prosecution but directed that they shall not be arrested in the said case till conclusion of the trial, provided an amount of compensation is paid to the wife @ Rs 4000 per month by placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty'. 4. In our view, the said case has no application to the facts of the present case as in that case an application for quashing the prosecution under Section 376 of the Penal Code was dismissed by the High Court and when this Court was moved, while upholding the same, this Court gave a direction that the prosecutrix shall be entitled to interim compensation @ Rs 1000 pending trial. In our view, no such direction was given by this Court that upon payment of such a compensation, the accused shall not be arrested. This being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing that the accused persons shall not be apprehended till conclusion of the trial as if similar direction was given by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It will be open to the private respondents now to surrender before the trial court and in case they surrender and apply for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits.