IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21563 of 1998 SHYAM CHAUDHARY SON OF MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF KATIHAR, BARI BAZAR, P.S.AND DISTRICT KATIHAR. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANOJ KUMAR SUREKHA SON OF DEVI PRASAD SUREKHA, RESIDENT OF ALAM NAGAR, P.S. ALAM NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. ----------- 6. 30.3.2010. In this case on 23.3.2010, despite repeated call, none had appeared either to press this petition or for making a prayer for adjournment. However, by order dated 23.3.2010, it was directed to list this case on 29th March, 2010. In order dated 23.3.2010, it was indicated that in the case, by order dated 18.2.1999, the interim order of stay of further proceeding in court below is continuing. Today, again on repeated call, none has appeared. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the case. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 2.6.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.92(C) of 1998 (T.R. No.694/98). By the - 2 - impugned order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the complaint petition and also the order dated 2.6.1998 whereby learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences. It appears that before taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate had examined the complaint petition, statement of complainant on S.A. and four witnesses, who were examined in support of the complaint. I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and petition stands rejected. 5. The present case was admitted for hearing by an order dated 18.2.1999. While admitting the petition, this Court had directed that pending final hearing of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and stay order is still continuing. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. - 3 - N.H./ 6. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)