H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by Sri Piyus Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 1019 of 2007, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below, finding that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioners have been made accused in Complaint Case No. 1019 of 2007 filed by the widow of the brother of these petitioners. The brother of these petitioners was working in Indian Army and he was married to the complainant opposite party No. 2. It appears that there was some matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, due to which, she was living separately, and in the year 1989 she had filed a case claiming maintenance from her husband, which was allowed by the competent Court and she was getting the maintenance. However, according to the claim of the widow, i.e.,