IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11014 of 2010 Smt.Meena Saha @ Smt.Meena Devi & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- 4/ 12/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State. The present family feud could not materialized in spite of having the matter referred to the Mediation Centre vide order dated 29.11.2010. Petitioners/accused have challenged the order dated 05.09.2003 whereby and where-under they along with others have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Though the petitioners had mentioned with regard to Matrimonial Suit No. 47/05 by which the marriage between the spouses was dissolved but with ulterior motive could not mention in his pleadings that the charges have already been framed and four witnesses have already been examined, which has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the informant. 2 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when proceeding is going on then, I do not see it a fit case wherein extraordinary jurisdiction could be invoked to nip at this juncture and accordingly the petition is dismissed. perwez ( Aditya Kumar Trivedi ,J.)