JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J - The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. 2. Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel appears for the State of Jharkhand. 3. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 20.06.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.778 of 2012. This order has been passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. The petitioners have pleaded that none of the witnesses have spoken about quarrel between the parties and in view of the petition filed by the petitioner no.1 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution it must be construed in law that the complaint filed against the petitioners is on the basis of the false and concocted facts. 5. Apparently, this writ petition (criminal) is an abuse of the process of law. Against the order dated 20.06.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.778 of 2012, in the aforesaid facts, this writ petition would not lie; remedy to the petitioners is to approach the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the order passed in Criminal Revision No.778 of 2012. 6. In the aforesaid facts, though the petitioners are not represented through their learned counsel, this writ petition is dismissed.