Criminal Miscellaneous No.22996 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------- 1. RAJESH KUMAR MANDAL, Son of Kishori Mandal 2. Shambhu Pd. Mandal, Son of Kishori Mandal, both residents of Mohalla Commissionery P.S. and District- Sheikhpura. 3. Ramashraya Pd. Mahto, Son of Late Takenarayan Mahto 4. Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Son of Nageshwar Pd.Sharma 5. Lalan Kumar Mahto @ Lalan Pd.Mahto, Son of Binda Mahto No.3 to 5 are resident of Mohalla Khandper, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura 6. Sita Prasad Sah @ Sita Pd. Sao, Son of Chotan Sao, resident of Mohalla- Khandper, P.S.& Distt- Sheikhpura. 7. Dharmshila Devi Wife of Sita Pd. Sao, resident of Mohalla-Khandper, P.S.& Distt- Sheikhpura. 8. Umesh Kumar Mahto Son of Sri Shivnandan Mahto, resident of Village- Husenabad, P.S. and Distt- Sheikhpura 9. Dilip Kumar Mahto, Son of Hari Mahto resident of Village- Khandper, P.S. & District-Sheikhpura. ---------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Safique Ahmad, Son of Supan, resident of Village-Bighapar, P.S. & District- Sheikhpura 3. Samsudin Son of Panchu Mian, resident of Village- Jamalpur Bighapar, P.S. + District-Sheikhpura. ---------- Opp.Parties. ----------- 2 For the petitioners : None For the State :Sri Damodar Lal Tiwary, A.P.P. For Opp.Party : Sri Rashid Izhar, Advocate. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J On repeated calls, again no one appears on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. Under the heading for hearing, earlier on 25.3.2010 when this case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. By the order dated 25.3.2010, it was made it clear that if on the next date, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners, the matter will be decided on the basis of materials available on the record. 3. Nine petitioners , while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.1.1998, whereby the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406,408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No.165(C ) of 1996 . 4. I have examined the complaint petition as well as materials available on record of the case. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainants were cheated by accused persons including the petitioners by way of persuading them to deposit amount in the name and style of a 3 Company “Memorial Finance and Investment (India) Ltd.”, Sheikhpura. After being cheated, the present Complaint petition was filed and in support of the complainant’s case three witnesses were also examined. The witnesses supported the allegation made in the complaint petition and thereafter by order dated 19.1.1998, the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura took cognizance for the offences mentioned herein above. On examination of the complaint petition as well as the impugned order, it appears that the complaint categorically discloses commission of offences. In the order of cognizance, I do not find any defect. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and accordingly, petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 2nd April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J)