Criminal Miscellaneous No.27733 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- 1. Nageshwar Singh , Son of Late Ramotar Singh 2. Urmila Devi, Wife of Shri Nageshwar Singh 3. Sushila Devi @ Ranjana Singh, Wife of Shri Praveen Kumar Singh 4. Praveen Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Nageshwar Singh 5. Laxmi Singh, Son of Shri Ramotar Singh 6. Moti Singh, Son of Late Ramotar Singh ( wrongly mentioned) in fact son of Shri Laxmi Singh All residents of Village Pachath, P.S. Beldaur, District- Khagaria ------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMA KANT JHA Son of Late Govind Jha, resident of Village- Balaitha, P.S. Beldaur, District-Kharia ---------------- Opp.Parties. For the petitioners: None Opp.Party no.2 : None 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. Yesterday, when the case was called out, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, as a last indulgence the case was adjourned for a day. It was noticed by this Court that in the case the interim order of stay is continuing since 27.1.2000. It was further made clear that if tomorrow no one appears on behalf of the petitioners, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on the record. 2. Today when the case was called out, none has come forward to press this petition. 3. Six petitioners , while invoking inherent jurisdiction 2 of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by Sri S.K.Sinha ‘Mukul’, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in Complaint Case No.530( C) /96 . By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The petitioners were made accused by the complainant for commission of offence under Sections 379,323,147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was initiated vide Complaint case No.530 (C) of 1996. In the case after cognizance when the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition. 5. Sri A.M.P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State submits that the complaint petition itself makes it clear that the petitioners had committed offences, as alleged by the complainant. He further submits that the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the order Magistrate appears to be in accordance with law. He further submits that while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court may not interfere with the criminal trial. 6. I have also examined the complaint petition as well as the impugned order, whereby the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected. The learned Magistrate, while passing the order dated 13.10.1999, has examined the materials 3 available on the record and while rejecting the discharge petition, he has not committed any error. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. In the present case in view of order dated 20.7.2000 lower court record was received and same is lying on the record of this case. The office is directed to remit back the lower court record forthwith Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 23rd April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )