ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP as well as learned counsel for OP No.3.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29.08.2016 passed by ACJM-cum-Sub Judge-XIII, Patna in Patliputra PS Case No. 148/2012 whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioners purported to be under Section 239 CrPC has been rejected as well as order dated 31.10.2017 passed by Sessions Judge-XIII, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 678/2016 discussing the same.

3. While challenging the order impugned, it has been submitted that for the same occurrence, at an earlier occasion, Danapur PS Case No. 228/2000 has been drawn up by the wife and the same is still pending. It has further been submitted that the instant prosecution suffers from inherent lacuna in the background of the fact that the informant of this case happens to be Chairperson of Bihar State Mahila Commission who happens to be not at all competent enough to institute a case in accordance with Sections 198 as well as 198A of the CrPC. It has also been submitted that from perusal of the written report along with the materials collected during course of investigation, did not justify the finding so recorded by the learned lower cou