CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16916 OF 2000 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.RAMA DEVI wife of late Singheshwar Sharma 2.Murlidhar Sharma son of late Singheshwar Sharma 3.Munni Devi wife of Murlidhar Sharma All resident of village-Fatehpur, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur. 4.Bijay Shankar Sharma son of late Singheshwar Sharma 5.Madhu Devi @ Madhulika Devi wife of Bijay Shankar Sharma 6.Kunji Kumari @ Kunnu Kumari @ Jollly daughter of Bijay Shankar Sharma, All resident of Qrs. No.T/7 AB Temporary Halt Colony, Jamalpur, P.S.-Jamalpur, Dist.-Munger 7. Ahilya Devi wife of Shri Rajendra Sharma, resident of 16, Uma Das Lane, P.S.-Moulali, Dist.-Calcutta, West Bengal. 8.Sumitra Devi wife of Shri Basuki Nath Sharma, Resident of Quarter No. EWS 14/3, Tripple Storey, Govindpur,P.S.Telco Colony, District West Singhbhum (Jamshedpuar} 9.Sunaina Devi @ Sulena Devi, wife of Shri Dayanand Sharma 10.Vikky Kumar @ Vikky Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Dayanand Sharma 11. Pinki @ Pinki Kumari, daughter of Dayanand Sharma All residents of Teliya Para, Kharagpur,P.S.Gop Bazar, District Mednapur, West Bengal. ------ ----- Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Parwati Devi daughter of Basudeo Sharma, Nowagarhi,P.S.Mufassil, District Munger. ---- ------Opp.Parties ------ For the petitioners: None For the State: Mr. Binod Kumar No.3 ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Today again when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make adjournment. Yesterday (2.8.2010) also none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 2 2. Eleven petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 27.4.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Jamalpur P.S. Case No.115 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate differing with the recommendation of the police/differing with the police report has taken cognizance of the offences even against the petitioners. From the record it appears that initially opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No.431C of 1999 and the same was transferred to the police for its registration and investigation and thereafter a case vide Jamalpur P.S. Case No.115 of 1999 was registered on 5.9.1999 against twelve accused including the petitioners. The informant in the case was wife of Niranjan Sharma @ Jai Shankar Sharma, who was made accused no.1 in the complaint case as well as in the first informantion report. After registration of the case, the police investigated the same and submitted charge sheet. However, the police submitted charge sheet only against accused-Niranjan Sharma, who is not before this court. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate perused the entire materials available on the record including the statement of the informant recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other witnesses. After being satisfied that there were sufficient materials to proceed with the case even against the accused persons, who were not forwarded by the police, the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 27.4.2000 took 3 Patna High Court The 3rd August,2010 Md.S./NAFR. cognizance of the offences and directed for summoning all the accused persons which includes the petitioners. 3. In this case none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. However, I have heard Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. He Submits that in the impugned order there is no defect and the petition is fit to be rejected. 4. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was competent to differ with the police report since from the order it appears that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there were materials on record to proceed against the petitioners also. 5. I do not find any material warranting exercise of inherent power in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 4.7.2000 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)