IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.48756 of 2008 1. Bijay Kumar Yadav. 2. Balram Yadav. 3. Kailash Yadav. Son of Late Arjun Yadav, resident of village-Halimpur, P.S. Nayaram Nagar, District-Munger. …………………………………………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. ……………………………………Opposite 1st Party. 2. Ajay Prasad Yadav, son of Late Arjun Yadav, resident of village-Halimpur, P.S. Nayara Nagar, District- Munger. …………………………………….Opposite 2nd Party. 3. Nepali Yadav, son of Late Balram Yadav, resident of village-Halimpur, P.S. Nayara Nagar, District-Munger. ……………………………………….Opposite 3rd Party. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. -------------------------- 2. 24.8.2011. Heard. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners, is directed for quashing the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger, in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2008, whereby the Sessions Judge, Munger, has disposed of the aforesaid Criminal Revision with certain observations filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners 2 challenging the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Complaint Case No.548C of 1995, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners to debar the complainant to examine the witness was rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that at the time of disposal of Criminal Revision No.402 of 2004 on 25.5.2007, the revisional court had given three consecutive dates to the complainant to examine the witness on his behalf but the same has not been complied with by the complainant and again the revisional court while disposing of the Criminal Revision No.44 of 2008 on 21.10.2008 has granted time to the complainant to examine the witness as preferred against the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, allowing the complainant to appear for cross examination. From the impugned order dated 21.10.2008, it appears that no date was fixed by the Sessions Judge to examine the witness on behalf of the complainant at the time of disposal of Criminal Revision No.402 of 2004 on 25.5.2007 and it was left upon the trial court to fix three 3 consecutive dates. The information slip filed on behalf of the petitioners shows that the record was received from the revisional court in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Munger, on 26.6.2007, i.e., after 8.6.2007. The next date was fixed for 26.6.2007 but on that date, the office clerk did not place the record before the Magistrate. On 26.6.2007, the next date was fixed for 29.9.2007 and on that date, the Magistrate fixed the date for defence evidence on 4.10.2007 which is within the three consecutive dates as observed by the revisional court. I find no illegality amounting to misuse of process of court in the impugned order to interfere in inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)