CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12577 OF 2002 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- CHANDRA BHANU PRASAD SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAIN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHADURPUR PETHIYAGACHHI, P.S. SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. On call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. On perusal of order sheet, it appears that on 25.8.2010, repeated prayer was made to pass over the case. The case was passed over with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. On 26.8.2010, when the case was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted adjournment to ascertain the status of the case in respect of other accused persons. The case was adjourned for a week. It was indicated that in the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner may bring on 2 record the copy of the charge sheet by way of supplementary affidavit. Today, when the case was called out, none appeared either to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. On perusal of the record, it appears that order dated 26.8.2010 has not been complied with. No supplementary affidavit has been filed. 3. The petitioner, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.1.2002 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai in G.R. No.51 of 1999, T.R. No.548 of 2002. 4. In absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, I have heard Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected two petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner; first petition was filed on his behalf whereby the petitioner had prayed for certain documents and by second petition i.e. petition dated 16.9.2000, prayer was made to discharge him. 3 The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 28.1.2002, had rejected the petition for discharge and directed all the accused persons to remain physically present in court for framing of the charge. 5. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. I am of the view that while rejecting both the petitions filed by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. The petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in his favour. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 17.3.2004 stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 7.9.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.