Criminal Miscellaneous No.27141 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- 1. KAMLESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ,B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd.,1/1 Camac Street Calcutta-700016, P.S. Park Street, Calcutta 2. Niranjan Lal Todi, son of S.Lal Todi, M.D. B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd.,1/1 Camac Street, P.S. Park Street, Calcutta-700016 3. Pranjit Majumdar, Son of Sri Anand Morg Majumdar, B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd.,1/1 Camac Street, P.S. Park Street, Calcutta-700016 ------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ramesh Singh, Son of Sri Gauri Singh, resident of Village- Seerpur, Police Station-Maranchi, District- Patna --------- Opp.Parties. --------------- For the petitioners : None. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J Yesterday on repeated calls, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 was present. 2. It was indicated in the order dated 30.3.2010 that in this case stay of further proceedings in Complaint Case No.269(C)/97 is continuing since long. It was made clear that if on the next day no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the case will be decided on the basis of materials available on the record of this case 3. Today again no one appears on behalf of the 2 petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 is present. 4. The three petitioners , while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have approached this Court for quashing the order dated 2.4.1998 passed in Case No.269(C)/97 by Sri R.P.Singh, J.M.1st Class, Lakhisarai . By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It has been specifically alleged in the complaint petition, i.e. Complaint Case No.269(C)/97 that the truck of the complainant, bearing Registration No.BPL 5941, which was purchased under the hire purchase agreement with Punjan National Bank, Maranchi,Patna , was forcibly taken away by the accused persons conspiring with each other. In the complaint petition, it was indicated that the complainant for the release of the vehicle in question, was constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court and by the order of this Court, the truck was released in favour of the petitioners.It was also alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioners had no connection in relation to the hire purchase of the truck in question. It was indicated in the complaint petition that the petitioner had purchased the truck in question under the hire purchase agreement with Punjab National Bank, Maranchi,Patna . After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and three witnesses were examined in support of the case of the complainant. After examining the complaint petition, statement of the complainant recorded on S.A. and evidence of 3 witnesses recorded on behalf of the complainant, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 2.4.1998 took cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. 6. I have examined the complaint petition, impugned order as well the materials available on the record of the case. I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. 8. In this case by the order dated 5.4.1999, while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2 for filing show cause, this Court had directed that further proceedings in Complaint Case No.269(C)/97 in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 14.7.1999, this case was admitted for hearing and it was further directed that till final disposal of this application, interim order dated 5.4.1999 will continue. The order of stay is still continuing. 9. In view of the rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 31st March,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.r.