IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32375 of 2008 Rajendra Pandit son of late Bhagwan Pandit, resident of Village- Tirari, P.S. Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur. .........Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .......Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 06 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. P.P. for the State. This application, filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 04.06.2008, passed in Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2006, by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, dismissing the revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 13.11.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 824 of 2002 by Sri R.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner made submission that complainant, Leela Devi, happens to be the wife of the petitioner, had filed the Maintenance Case No. 80 M of 1990, in which she has stated about her non-willing, to restore her conjugal life and after twenty years of that, filing Complaint Case No. 824 of 2002 on her behalf against the petitioner and others appears to be with oblique motive, only to harass the petitioner. On perusal of the order dated 04.06.2008, passed in Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2006, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge arrived at conclusion that after considering the evidence of the witnesses as recorded under section 244 of Code of 2 Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at conclusion that there is sufficient material on the record for framing of charge against the accused including the petitioner and, accordingly, rejected the criminal revision. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty, to raise his defence, as raised herein, at appropriate stage in trial Court. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)