Criminal Miscellaneous No.11840 OF 1999 ----- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ----- DR. D. K. OJHA @ DINESH KUMAR OJHA son of Shivesh Chandra ojha, resident of Mohalla, Shivlok, Kashi Bazar, P.S.-Bhagwan Bazar, Dist.-Saran …… ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Satyendra Kumar Singh son of Sukhdeo Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Dahiyawan Tola, P.S.-Chapra Town, Dist.-Saran …. …..Opp. Parties. ------- For the petitioner: None For opp.party no.2 : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh For the State: Mr.Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Yesterday, on repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Learned counsel for the opposite party was present. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was indicated that if on the next day no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the case will be decided on the basis of materials available on the record. In the present case, order of stay is continuing since 17.8.1999. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward to press this petition, however learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present. It appears that after obtaining order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case. 2. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has - 2 - prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.10.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Revision No.129 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has quashed the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran (hereinafter as S.D.J.M.) in Complaint Case No.282 of 1996. The learned S.D.J.M. had dismissed the complaint petition, which was filed by opposite party no.2. The complaint petition was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 3. Short fact of the case is that the complainant had filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.282 of 1996 alleging therein that the petitioner, who was a doctor, had examined the daughter of the complainant and he had wrongly treated her. Subsequently, through another doctor, this fact came to the notice of the complainant and thereafter, complainant visited the clinic of the petitioner and wanted to enquire about such treatment. However, as per the direction of this petitioner, the staff assaulted the complainant and also forcibly took his signature on blank paper. He was also illegally confined and after intervention of the villagers he could be freed. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint petition and in support of his complaint he was examined on solemn affirmation and two witnesses were also examined, who supported the case of the complainant. However, the S.D.J.M., contrary to the evidence brought on record, in an illegal manner rejected the complaint petition. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by S.D.J.M., Saran, whereby Complaint Case No.282 of 1996 was rejected, the - 3 - complainant filed revision vide Cr.Revision No.129 of 1998. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, assigning a detailed reason and dealing with entire evidences, which were brought on record during enquiry of the case, has aside the order passed by S.D.J.M., Saran. While setting aside the order of learned S.D.J.M., the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded back the matter to the court below for proceeding in accordance with law. 4. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that, while allowing the revision petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has examined the evidences and other materials and only after being satisfied that the order of learned Magistrate is contrary to law, has set aside the order and while remanding the case back to the learned Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake. 5 I have examined the materials available on record as well as the order dated 31st October, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saran. I feel that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned and legal order and has committed no error, while remanding the matter back to the court below for proceeding in accordance with law. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as indicated above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In this case while issuing notice to opposite party no.2 this court by its order dated 17.8.1998 had directed that in the - 4 - meanwhile further proceeding of Complainant Case No.282 of 1996, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Saran, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 13.1.2000 the case was admitted for hearing and again it was directed that pending hearing of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and since then the stay order is continuing. 8. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. 10. Keeping in view the fact that for about ten years the matter was kept pending before this court, it is desirable to direct the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case expeditiously. Patna High Court The 23rd April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)