Criminal Miscellaneous No.32216 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------ 1. Dhurub Kr.Jaiswal @ Dhrub Jaiswal , Son of Late Banga Gopal 2. Diwa Devi , Wife of Dhrub Jaiswal 3. Dipak Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Dhrub Jaiswal 4. Putul Kumari, Son of Dhrub Jaiswal All residents of Lalkothi, Police Station-Katihar, District- Katihari ---------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gayetri Devi , Wife of Bijoy Rai, resident of Driver Tola, Police Station-Katihar, District-Katihar ----------- Opp.Parties. ----------------- For the petitioners: None. For Opp.Party no.2: Mr. Binod Kr.Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. On 14.5.2010 when the case was called out, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, as a last indulgence the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was indicated that in this case, interim order of stay is continuing since long. It was further made clear that if on the next date no one appears on behalf of the petitioners, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record even in absence of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward to press this petition. However, Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 is present. 2 3. I have heard Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 and Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 17.9.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in C.A. Case No.1092 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 376/511, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by Sri Binod Kumar Singh that accused no.1, who was landlord of Opp.Party no.2, after finding the complainant alone in her house, entered in drunken state and that ,too, in almost naked position . While objected by the complainant, petitioner no.1 assaulted and thereafter tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant as well as he tried to commit rape. After alarm was raised by the complainant, other persons also arrived and thereafter he fled from the place of occurrence and subsequently, he along with his sons, who are petitioner nos. 2 to 4 again came and assaulted the informant as well as her son. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and four witnesses supported the complainant at the enquiry stage. After being satisfied that prima facie case for the offence under Sections 376/511 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, the 3 learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences and directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons. 6. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition and in this case, while admitting, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 7. Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has argued that there were sufficient materials on record to proceed against the petitioners and, as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed order of cognizance dated 17.9.1999. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order of cognizance. 8. Sri A.M.P.Metha has supported the stand taken by Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. 9. Besides hearing learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 and learned counsel for the State, I have also examined the materials available on the record. I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance dated 17.9.1999. Moreover, in this case besides the complainant, other witnesses have categorically supported the case of the complainant and, as such, I do not find any point to interfere with the order of cognizance and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 10. In view of rejection of the present petition, the 4 interim order of stay dated 2.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 11. Since the matter was kept pending before this Court for such a long time, it is desirable to direct the court below to expedite the case and conclude the same as early as possible. 12. With the above observation and direction , the petition stands disposed of 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 17th May,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )