In a case arising out of impugned judgment and order dated September 30, 2024 by Justice Satyvrat Verma of Patna High Court in Sankat Mochan Tripathi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr (2025), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih ordered: "the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Complaint Case No.1031/2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua, Bihar subject to condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation....Prima facie, this may be an appropriate case where the petitioner and the second respondent should try to resolve the dispute between them through a mediated settlement." The second respondent is Sukanya Pandey @Beauty. The order was passed on October 24, 2024.
The order of March 3, 2025 reads:"We are of the view that the petitioner should come out with a better offer than what he is proposing. To enable the petitioner to come out with a reasonable offer, list the Petition on 24th March, 2025. In the meanwhile, the interim relief granted earlier by this Court to continue." On December 6, 2024, the Court's order recorded: "The petitioner and the second respondent are residing separately from the year 2021. Therefore, we refer the dispute between the parties to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Accordingly, we direct the parties to remain present before the Coordinator, Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 19th December, 12024 at 2.30 p.m. The first meeting with the coordinator shall be virtual. The learned Mediator appointed by the Supreme Court Mediation Centre is requested to conduct the proceedings, as far as possible, through the medium of video conference. In the event, the learned Mediator desires personal presence of the parties, the petitioner shall pay the requisite amount to the respondent no.2 towards travelling charges and stay in Delhi, as may be suggested by the learned Mediator. Mediation Report to be submitted within two months. List the matter immediately after receipt of the report." On February 14, 2025, the Court had directed the petitioner and Sukanya Pandey, the second respondent to remain present through video conference on March 3, 2025.
The High Court had not extended "the privilege of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. It had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner." Apprehending his arrest in a Complaint Case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sankat Mochan Tripathi, the petitioner had approached the Court. The petitioner had submitted that petitioner husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by Sukanya Pandey @Beauty. The petitioner was married to the complainant on May 7, 2021. She has alleged that after marriage the accused persons including the petitioner were demanding a bullet motorcycle and a golden chain. When the demand was not met, she was ousted from her matrimonial home after assaulting her. The petitioner is a Vedacharya, recognized by Banaras Bidwat Parishad. It was submitted it does not appear probable that a person of that stature would indulge in such an act.
The petitioner has filed a divorce case which is pending adjudication. The counsel of the wife had submitted that petitioner right was never interested in keeping his wife with honour and dignity from the very outset. It was further submitted that till the time divorce application is decided in favour of the petitioner, Suknaya Pandey will remain his legally wedded wife who is suffering in absence of any financial support from the petitioner. She ousted and is completely dependent on her parents and the petitioner till date has not paid anything towards her maintenance.
No comments:
Post a Comment