Criminal Miscellaneous No.13640 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---- 1. VIJAY KUMAR TEKRIWAL, SON OF LATE BANARSILAL TEKRIWAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- JHAUGANJ, PATNA CITY, P.S. CITY CHOWK, DISTRICT & TOWN AT PATNA. 2. SHANKAR LAL KHEMKA, SON OF KHETARAM KHEMKA, RESIDENT OF ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, POLICE STATION- SAMASTIPUR, TOWN & DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 3. RAMESH KUMAR KHEMKA, SON OF LATE SHANKAR LAL KHEMKA, RESIDENT OF PLYWOOD HOME, CHANDRAWATI MARKET, EXHIBITION ROAD, POLICE STATION- GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN & DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANAGER(DISBURSMENT), BIHAR STATE CREDIT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, INDIRA BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR, RAM CHARITRA SINGH PATH, PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY ---- For the Petitioners : None For Opposite Party No.2 : Nirmal Kumar,Advocate ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. On 22nd March, 2010, on repeated call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press the petition or to make a prayer even for a pass over. Today again, when the case was called out, no one appears to press this petition nor for making a prayer for adjournment. 2. In this case, by order dated 3.8.1998, while issuing notice to opposite 2 party no.2 to file show cause, this Court had ordered that in the meanwhile, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by order dated 14.1.1999, the petition was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order passed on 3.8.1998 shall continue. However, learned counsel Sri Nirmal Kumar is present on behalf of opposite party no.2. 3. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had approached this Court for quashing of entire criminal proceedings arising out of Srikrishnapuri P.S. Case No.80 of 1996 (G.R. No.2111/96) for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, at the stage of charge a discharge petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the court of Mr. Zafar Imam, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna. The learned Magistrate by its order dated 19.3.1998 rejected the discharge 3 petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. In the case, allegation against the accused persons, as per F.I.R. was that they were provided with the loan to the tune of Rs.36 lacs. The petitioners were alleged to be Directors of the said Company. Subsequently, a cheque for an amount of Rs.3 lacs towards payment of interest for the month of March, 1996, which was issued by the petitioner no.1, after its representation before the Bank was dishonoured and on these materials, F.I.R. was lodged. 5. I have perused the order dated 19.3.1998 whereby learned Magistrate had rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the accused/petitioners. The order whereby discharge petition was rejected gives a detailed reason for its rejection and I do not find any defect in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 4 PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 23.3.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)