IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50969 of 2007 BALMIKI PANDEY @ MASTER SAHEB, son of late Jugal Pandey, resident of village – Govindpur, P.S. – Khusarupur, District – Patna at present resident of village – Saharu, P.S. – Dhanarua, District – Patna. --------------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Deoki Nandan Pandey, son of late Jugnarayan Pandey, resident of Mohalla – Kagichak, P.S. – Barh, Distt. – Patna. 3. Smt. Chandani Devi, wife of Sri Vivekanand Pandey, resident of village – Govindpur, P.S. – Khusarupur, Distt. – Patna at present resident of village – Saharu, P.S. – Dhanarua, Distt. – Patna. -------------- Opp. Parties. ------- 3 02.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 26.04.2007, passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh (Patna), in connection with complaint case no. 457 (C) of 2006, taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 342, 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of submissions, it is pointed out that victim who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner and daughter of opposite party no. 2. Complainant has already stated before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate during the hearing of Anticipatory Application bearing no. 5581/2007. She has no grievance against father-in-law and husband living conjugal life happily. It is further submitted that the trial has already commenced and a few witnesses have been examined in this case. - 2 - But for the reasons best known to opposite party no. 2 the victim Smt. Chandani Devi, has not been examined. If the statements regarding happily living conjugal life speaks truth, the victim opposite party no. 3 must have stated so before the trial court by law. However, under the facts and circumstances, it seems desirable that opposite party no. 3 be first examined before the trial court, who shall on consideration of her statement pass such orders at the earliest. It is further made clear preferably within a month of the receipt of this order. Opposite party no. 3, the victim should be examined before the trial court. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)