ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for certain relief i.e. for quashment of the order dated 5.9.2005, by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 498A/304(B) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has appeared after receipt of the notice. 3. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel, at the outset, submitted that he is not pressing the prayer that has been made in the main petition for quashment of the order dated 5.9.2005. As a matter of fact, Petitioners had not surrendered in the Court. By filing I.A. No. 464 of 2011, Petitioners though requested that they be enlarged on bail on surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Hazaribagh in view of the earlier orders dated 5.9.2005, 5.2.2007 and 11.6.2009 but the Petitioners now want that they should be protected on their surrender before the Court concerned as the processes have been issued under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them. 4. It would be relevant to mention, Mr. Mazumdar added, that the husband, who was facing charge under Sections 498A/304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, was acquitted after trial on the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution witnesses that Gudia sustained burn injuries while she was extinguishing fire. The father-informant of Gudia was produced as P.W.-6, who was consistent that there was no demand of dowry and that husband of Gudia had never tortured her in any manner. P.W.-2, who was the neighbour, testified that Gudia suffered some mental imbalance and that at the relevant time when the fire broke out, husband was not in the house. Now the Petitioners are ready to face the trial, though the principal accused has been acquitted and therefore, some protection may be given to them in case of surrender. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant puts no objection and submitted that misunderstanding between the parties has been removed and it would not be out of place to mention that the Investigating Officer after investigation had submitted final form initially showing the mistake of facts but on the protest petition of the informant, complaint was lodged. 6. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant puts no objection and submitted that misunderstanding between the parties has been removed and it would not be out of place to mention that the Investigating Officer after investigation had submitted final form initially showing the mistake of facts but on the protest petition of the informant, complaint was lodged. 6. Considering the entire stock of the situation as well as the fact produced on behalf of the Petitioners, I find that their prayer needs consideration. Accordingly, in the event of their surrender in the trial Court within twenty days of this order and presentation of a petition under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, same may be considered in view of the fact that principal accused has been acquitted by the trial Court. 7. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 464 of 2011 also stands disposed of. 9. Let the order be communicated through FAX on the cost to be deposited on behalf of the Petitioners.