CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39441 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------ Salful Singh, Son of Late Jibachh Singh, resident of Village and Post Office-Bariyarpur, Police Station and District- Sitamarhi --------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dr.Indal Singh, Navin Ex-Incharge Principal, R.K.P.L.D. Kishan College, Bariyarpur, Police Station and District-Sitamarhi 3. Gopal Prasad Mashkhara, Son of Late Sitaram Mashkhara, resident of Mohalla- Shankar Chowk, Police Station & District- Sitamarhi ------------------- Opp.Parties. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Today again, on call none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri M.K.Khare, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present. On 16.11.2010 also none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, the case was adjourned for the day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. 2. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.5.2007 passed by Shri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Sitamarhi in Cr.Revision No.129 of 2006. By the said order, while allowing the revision petition, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case 2 No. 848 of 2005, T.R.No.1728 of 2007, whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420,467,468,471,120B of the Indian Penal Code against Opp.Party nos.2 and 3. 3. It appears from the record that earlier the petitioner had filed a complaint against altogether 13 persons arraying them as accused including Opp.Party nos.2 and 3. It appears that the complaint petition was related with the dispute of property of an Institution. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences only against Opp.Party nos.2 and 3. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, Opp.Party nos.2 and 3 had preferred a revision vide Cr.Revision No.129 of 2006. Perusal of the revisional order dated 31.5.2007 indicates that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has examined the materials in detail and was of the opinion that for dispute relating to property of Institution, the complainant may not be allowed to invoke jurisdiction of a criminal court . By assigning a detailed reason, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has set aside the order of cognizance. 4. After going through the record, the Court is satisfied that the impugned order requires no interference. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 18th November,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. (Rakesh Kumar, J.)