IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56797 of 2007 1. ANIL KUMAR YADAV @ ANIL SINGH SON OF SRI RAM DULAR YADAV 2. DIPAK KUMAR SON OF LATE MOTI YADAV 3. RAM DULAR YADAV SON OF RAM ESHWAR YADAV 4. JAGAR NATH YADAV SON OF RAM ESHWAR YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NIJAMPUR SABBALPUR, P.S. DIDARGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINESH SINGH SON OF LATE FIRANGI SINGH, MANAGER OF M/S HARIYANA TRANSPORT OF INDIA, MAHATMA GANDHI SETU ROAD, PAHARIPAR, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 5. 8.11.2010. Today again, on call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. On 3.11.2010, none appeared. The case was adjourned for the day. Again on 4.11.2010, none appeared. Accordingly, it was adjourned for the day with an indication that if on next date, no one appears for the petitioners, the petition shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record even in absence of learned counsel for the petitioners. In absence of learned counsel for the petitioners, I myself have perused the materials available on record. 2 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 8.1.2007 passed by Shri Shobha Kant Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.3395(C) of 2006, T.R. No.1617 of 2007. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the complaint petition that the complainant had booked some goods for its transportation from Patna to Purnea. The complainant had alleged that driver, khalasi and owner of the truck in question had conspired with each other and removed certain goods from the truck and the complainant suffered huge loss. On aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed. After filing the complaint, the learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry and after being satisfied with the prima facie case, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After perusing the materials available on record particularly the averments made in 3 N.H./ the complaint petition as well as the impugned order, the court is of the opinion that while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 5.4.2010 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)