CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25178 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------------- Purushottam Lal Bajaj, Son of Late Mahadeo Lal Bajaj, resident of Hajipur Ward No.4, P.O. + P.S. & District- Khagaria ---- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sita Ram Bajaj, Son of Late Mahadeo Lal Bajaj 3. Dilip Kumar Bajaj 4. Bishnu Kumar Bajaj, both sons of Sri Sita Ram Bajaj, All residents of Mohalla- Hajipur, Ward No.4, P.O.+ P.S. & District- Khagaria ----------------- Opp.Parties. ---------------- For the petitioner: None For Opp.Party no.2 to 4: Sri Gopal Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the State : Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Today again when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri Gopal Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos.2 to 4 is present. Yesterday, none had appeared when the case was called out. However, Sri Gopal Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 4 was present. 2. I have perused the materials available on record and also heard Sri Gopal Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos.2 to 4 as well as Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner, who was complainant before the learned 2 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Complaint Case No.109( C ) of 2000, is before this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the order dated 28.6.2000 passed by Sri N.Pandit , learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria . By the said order the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint petition filed by the petitioner under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos.2 to 4 has categorically stated that there were no material on record to proceed against them and, as such, though the protest petition of the petitioner was treated as complaint case vide Complaint Case No.109C of 2000, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that no case was made out and accordingly the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the protest- cum- complaint petition of the petitioner. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for Opp.Parties and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. This Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner that too at such belated stage. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Since earlier lower court record was called for and received, office is directed to remit back the lower court record forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 3rd August,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )