IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27722 of 2010 Mumtaz Ahmad @ Karu & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- 3/ 19-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. However, in spite of having presence of O.P. No.2, none turned up to represent her. Gone through the order impugned in consonance with the complaint petition more particularly paragraph-14 in consonance with Annexure-3, the judgment which concluded in acquittal on the basis of compromise amongst the parties and that could not prevent the complainant to face similar treatment at the hands of the petitioners which ultimately resulted subsequent filing of complaint petition after gap of two years. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that apart from husband, some of the petitioners are in-laws. Also submitted that police had submitted final form after concluding the investigation which has been rejected by the learned lower court while taking cognizance vide order dated 2.2.2010, impugned order. So submitted that in the aforesaid background, the order of the cognizance coupled 2 with this entire prosecution is fit to be quashed. On the other hand, the State opposed and submitted that the steps taken by the learned lower court happens to be in accordance with law. Gone through the order in consonance with the averment of the complaint petition and I do not see any illegality therein. As such, prayer is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)