IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47086 of 2007 PRAMOD SHANKER DAYAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.35323 of 2007 PRAMOD SHANKER DAYAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 12.08.2009 Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State are present. Despite the matter being displayed in the cause list, with the name of the Counsel; for opposite party no. 2, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. The order dated 5.3.2009 reflects that Cr. Misc. No. 47086 of 2007 and 35323 of 2007 were heard and disposed together as is very much apparent from the last line of the order also. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that by inadvertence the details of the order of cognizance dated 15.4.2005 in Complaint Case No. 877(M)/2005 corresponding to Trial No. 1789/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Patna under the like provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the N. I. Act giving rise to Cr. Misc. No. 35323 of 2007 could not be incorporated in the order dated 5.3.2009. Let the aforesaid details be also incorporated in the said order by which both the Cr. Misc. applications have been allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 877(M)/2005 is, therefore, qualified to have been the subject of consideration by the order dated 5.3.2009 and stands quashed also. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)