Criminal Miscellaneous No.13046 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ 1.SHEO BACHAN SINGH son of late Nand Kishore Singh 2.Smt.Lalti Devi wife of Sheobachan Singh 3.Smt.Nirmala Devi wife of Ajay Singh All resident of village-Kolhana, P.S.-Wazirganj, Dist.-Gaya. 4.Smt. Champa Devi wife of Parmeshwar Singh, village- Kurmawan, P.S.-Cherki, Dist.-Gaya. …… ……Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Surajdeo Singh son of late Nand Kishore Singh, resident of village-Kolhana, P.S.-Wazirganj Dist.-Gaya. …… ……Opp.Parties. ------ For the petitioners: None For the State: Mr.Yognedra Kumar Singh ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. This is the second attempt by the petitioners in respect of Complaint Case No.490 of 1995. Earlier against the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners had filed a criminal revision before the sessions court which was rejected. Thereafter the petitioners filed a quashing application vide Cr. Misc. No.4403 of 1997 which stood rejected by this Court. However, while dismissing the said petition, vide order dated 8.9.1997 this court observed that it will be open to the petitioners to agitate the points raised in this application at the time of framing of charge. Now after rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners have again approached this court for quashing of the order dated 20.5.1999 passed by Sri Mahabir Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, whereby the petition filed 2 under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge was rejected and the learned Magistrate fixed a date for framing of the charge against the accused persons. 2. The present petition was admitted on 25.8.1999 and while admitting the case this court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. 3. I have perused the materials available on the record as well as order dated 20.5.1999. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition, has assigned a detailed reason. I am of the view that at the time of rejection of discharge petition though there was no requirement for assigning detailed reason the learned Magistrate has discussed the matter in detail. I do not find any defect in the order dated 20.5.1999 whereby discharge petition was rejected. 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 22nd April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)