CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19979 OF 2000 -------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- SMT. MANJUSHA GUPTA wife of Sanjay Gupta, at present resident of Mohalla-Mahajan Toli No.2, P.S.-Arrah town. Dist.-Bhojpur ..…. …..Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sanjay Gupta 3.Shekhar Gupta both sons of Prem Chand Gupta 4.Prem Chand Gupta son of late Radha Choudhary Agrawal 5.Smt. Usha Agrawal wife of Prem Chand Gupta 6.Smt. Lata Gupta wife of Shekhar Gupta All resident of 33/2 Pyare Mohan Mukherjee street, P.O.-Belur Math, Dist.-Howrah. 7.Nripen Chand Jain son of Supeshwedah Gupta, resident of Mahajan Toli No.1, P.S.-Arrah Town, Dist.-Bhojpur. ……….. ….…..Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Abhishek 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. The petitioner, after rejection of criminal revision petition i.e. Criminal Revision No.79 of 1998, has approached this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 11.5.2000 passed in Cr. Revision No.79 of 1998 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge,Arrah, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition of the petitioner which was filed against the order dated 27.3.1998 passed by Sri P.K.Upadhaya, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No.923-C of 1997/Tr. No.405 of 2000. By order dated 27.3.1998 the learned Magistrate, Arrah had allowed opposite party no.2, 4 and 5 to appear through their Advocate under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr.Abhisek, learned counsel appearing on behalf 2 Patna High court, The 21st July,2010 Md.S./NAFR of the petitioner, submits that the revision petition was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a mechanical manner and only on the ground that the order under challenge was an interlocutory order. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a serious offence i.e. offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the learned Magistrate was not required to entertain a petition under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without asking the accused persons to obtain bail. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of revisional court as well as order darted 27.3.1998 passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also heard Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Without going into the merit of the case this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order keeping in view the fact that the complaint petition was itself filed long back in the year 1998 and thereafter by order dated 27.3.1998 the learned Magistrate had allowed a petition filed under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the fact, the court is of the opinion, that after lapse of several years it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere with either of the orders. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)