ORDER : By an order dated 19.12.2014 passed in G.R. No. 349 of 2009, the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under section 239 or the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. 2. The petitioners are accused in Ghatshila PS Case No. 82 or 2009 which was registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) or the Code of Criminal Procedure on the complaint petition being C/1 Case No.61 of 2009 filed by opposite party No. 2. 3. The petitioners are accused of committing offence under sections 498A/406/120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The proceedings in this criminal revision petition which was filed on 15.01.2015 reveal that by an order dated 02.03.2015 status report or the case was called from the Court concerned. Thereafter the criminal revision petition was posted on atleast eight occasions however no information was provided to the Court. 5. On 29.07.2015, a co-ordinate Bench or this Court has passed the following order: "Though several adjournments have already been given to Mr. Sahani to ascertain the position from the client but again the prayer has been made to grant one week's time. Put up this case on 17th August, 2015. Till then, further proceeding of the court below shall remain stayed." 6. Thereafter the matter was again listed for hearing on eight another occasions and the interim order was continued. 7. This criminal revision petition was posted far hearing before me on 15.02.2021. On that day the following order was passed: "The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 19.12.2014 passed in Ghatshila PS Case No. 82 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 349 of 2009. By the said order the application of the petitioners seeking discharge in Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 82 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 349 of 2009 was rejected. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to ascertain the stage of trial Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the APP appears and states that he has received instructions regarding stage of the trial and as per information received by him from the investigating officer, the case is next fixed on 24-02-2021 On the request of Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, post this matter under the heading “Final Disposal” on 26.02.2021." 8. Today, Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, post this matter under the heading “Final Disposal” on 26.02.2021." 8. Today, Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned APP states that by now four prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and he has sent an e-mail regarding this information. 9. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners in view of advance stage of the trial are not inclined to pres this criminal revision petition on merits. 10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this criminal revision petition. 11. In the order dated 19.12.2014, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghatshila has observed as under: "Heard and perused the material available on record From the perusal of the case diary it comes out that except a few witnesses whose statement has been recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. in para No.37, 38 and 39 of the case diary. Rest of the witnesses of prosecution have supported the case of the informant as inrager to allegation against the accused u/s 498(A) of I.P.C. and also u/s 3/4 D.P. Act. The old age of few of the petitioner and pendency of maintenance suit can not be a ground for discharge for the petitioner. The same may be a valid defence at the time of trial. But, at this initial stage of charge I find that there is sufficient material available on record to make out a case u/s 498(A) of I.P.C. and u/s ¾ D.P. Act against all the accused persons. Accordingly, the petition dated 31.03.2014 u/s 239 of Cr. P.C. is hereby rejected. All the accused persons are directed to remain present physically before the Court on the next date fixed. ..” 12. On merits the petitioners may have a case, however, in view of the fact that the witnesses have now deposed on oath in the Court and the petitioners themselves are not inclined to pursue this criminal revision, Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2015 is dismissed as withdrawn without commenting further on the merits of the matter. 13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'Fax'.