Sunita Devi @ Sangeeta Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13350 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1434 Year-2019 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== 1.

SUNITA DEVI @ SANGEETA PANDEY Wife of Sanjeev Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeev Kumar Shastri Resident of Mohalla - Balidih (Near Railway Company) P.S. and District - Bokaro (Jharkhand). 2.

Sanjeev Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeev Kumar Shastri Son of Jay Naayan Pandey Resident of Mohalla - Balidih (Near Railway Company) P.S. and District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).

3.

Amarjeet Kumar Pandey @ Amarjee Pandey Son of Sanjeev Kumar Pandey @ Sanjeev Kumar Shastri Resident of Mohalla - Balidih (Near Railway Company) P.S. and District - Bokaro (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chitrangda Pandey Wife of Amarjeet Pandey (Daughter of Suryadeo Pandey), Resident of Mohalla - Balidih Near Railway Colony, P.S. - Balidih, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) at present residing at Mohalla E- Kisan Bhavan, Behind Manpur Block, Abgila Manpur, P.D. Muffassil, District - Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukul Prasad, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-04-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Judicial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13350 of 2021(2) dt.21-04-2022 2/2 Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint case No. 1434 © of 2019 vide Tr. No. 1438 of 2020 by which cognizance under Section 498A IPC has been taken against the petitioners and the summons have been ordered to be issued against them. Petitioner no.3 is the husband of the complainant. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. Allegation against them is of demand of dowry and torture for the same.

It would be in the interest of justice to put an end to the matrimonial strain between the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court for getting their statement recorded and if there is any possibility of mediation, the matter be referred to the District Mediation Centre and the District Mediator is expected to submit its report within a period of three months to the trial court.

With the above observation, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T