ORDER : I.A. No. 5338 of 2017 This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioners for deleting the name of O.P. No. 2 and inserting the name of the informant i.e. Daisy Hansda. 2. It appears that due to inadvertence, husband of the informant has been made as O.P. No. 2. In such view of the matter, in the cause title of the main application, name of O.P. No. 2 be deleted and the name of the informant-Daisy Hansda be inserted. 3. I.A. No. 5338 of 2017 is disposed of. I.A. No. 8948 of 2017 4. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioners for amending the prayer portion made in the main application in view of subsequent development, by virtue of which, process under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued by order dated 23.5.2017. 5. Although prayer made in the main application is for quashing the entire criminal proceeding but since order has been passed directing taking coercive steps against the petitioners, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this application is allowed. Let I.A. No. 8948 of 2017 be treated as a part of the main application. Cr. M.P. No. 1171 of 2017 6. Heard the parties. 7. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 78 of 2013, registered for the offence under sections 341, 323, 504, 354, 379, 35 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By virtue of I.A. No. 8948 of 2017 having been allowed by this Court, further challenge has been made to the order dated 23.5.2017, by virtue of which, process under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners so far as the initial prayer made by the petitioners is concerned, has stated that an FIR was instituted for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and as a retaliation, the husband of the petitioner no. 1 had set up her land lady, who has also instituted a false criminal case against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that no offence under section 3(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioners since the occurrence admittedly was not in public view. 1 had set up her land lady, who has also instituted a false criminal case against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that no offence under section 3(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioners since the occurrence admittedly was not in public view. It has also been submitted that it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioners, which deserve to be quashed and set aside. Continuing with the arguments, learned counsel submits that although this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1035 of 2017 has quashed the order, by which proclamation under section 82 Cr.PC. has been directed to be issued but in spite of knowing the said fact, learned court below passed a direction for issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C by order dated 23.5.2017, which according to learned counsel for the petitioners, deserves to be set aside. 9. Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that perusal of the complaint petition would reveal a prima facie existence of the allegation levelled against the petitioners. It has been submitted that complaint petition has been referred to the police and thereafter investigation is being carried on. Learned counsel submits that he vehemently objects to the aspersion cast upon the O.P. No. 2 with respect to her being concubine of the husband of petitioner no. 1. It has thus been submitted that present application is liable to be dismissed. 10. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears from the complaint petition that there is an allegation against the petitioners of abusing the O.P. No. 2 in the name of her caste. It further appears that immediately after the incident, other persons had assembled and thereafter it is alleged that silver chain had been snatched and the accused persons had fled away. Prima facie, from the complaint petition, there appears to be an allegation against the petitioners of committing theft, assault and abusing the O.P. No. 2 in the name of her caste. The investigation is still going on. In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners. 11. As regards the subsequent prayer made by the petitioners is concerned, it appears that there was some delay in communication of the order dated 2.5.2017, passed in Cr. The investigation is still going on. In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners. 11. As regards the subsequent prayer made by the petitioners is concerned, it appears that there was some delay in communication of the order dated 2.5.2017, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1035 of 2017 and being unaware of the said order, learned court below had passed the impugned order 23.5.2017 directing taking steps for issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, office was directed to recall the process under section 83 Cr.P.C. but as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same was never recalled which compelled the petitioner to withdraw Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1243 of 2017, which was filed for grant of anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, the impugned order dated 23.5.2017 does not contain any reason, which was necessary for issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C. 12. In view of the order aforesaid, the impugned order dated 23.5.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dumka is hereby quashed and set aside. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all their points at appropriate stage if ultimately complicity of the petitioners is found in course of investigation.