JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda in P.C.R. No. 195/2012 (T.R. No. 500/2013). 4. The Opposite Party No. 2 has filed the complaint petition alleging therein about harassment and demand of dowry under sections 332, 498A, 120(B) IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the cognizance has been taken. This case is of the year 2013. 5. At the outset, Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners very fairly submits that now three witnesses have been examined during pendency of this petition before charge and in the mediation compromise has been entered into between the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2. 6. If it is so, the instant petition is being disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the concerned court for appropriate order. Petition disposed of.