Criminal Miscellaneous No.28095 OF 1999 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- 1. KAMALESHWARI BHAGAT, SON OF SRI GENA LAL BHAGAT. 2. GULTO PD. YADAV @ GULTAIN PRASAD YADAV, SON OF SRI MUSO YADAV. 3. SURESH YADAV, SON OF SRI SHAKHI CHAND YADAV. 4. PAPPU BHAGAT, SON OF SRI KAMALESHWARI BHAGAT. 5. DASHRATH PD. SINGH, SON OF SRI KUSHESHWAR SINGH. 6. PARMESHWARI BHAGAT, SON OF SRI GENA LAL BHAGAT. PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 6 RESIDING AT VILLAGE :- SONEPURA, P.S.:- SIMARI, BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 7. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF SRI RAM PD. SHARMA. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE:- DURGAWARI, P.S: K. HAT, DISTRICT PURNIA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha,Adv. 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. Seven petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 16.9.1999 in Sessions Trial No.149 of 1998. By the said order, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa has framed the charge under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused persons. In this - 2 - case, since 15.3.2000, order of stay is continuing. On 15.3.2000, the present application was admitted and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in Sessions Case No.149 of 1998 pending in the court of Sri S.S. Sharma, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa shall remain stayed. 2. I have examined the impugned order. Surprisingly, while filing the present petition except impugned order, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners. 3. I am of the view and while framing charge by its order dated 16.9.1999, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge has committed no error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 4. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Since the present case was kept pending before this Court for about ten years, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. 5. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. - 3 - 6. In this case, earlier lower court record was called for and same was received and is kept on record. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, the office is directed to immediately remit back the entire lower court records to the court below along with a copy of this order. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 27.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.