CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13088 OF 2000 --------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- SACHIDANAND SINGH @ SACHIDANAND PRASAD SINGH son of late Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of village-Amaruhan, P.S.-Sahar, Dist.-Bhojpur presently residing at village-Hatpokhar, P.S.-Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur ……… ……..Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Hanif Mian son of Barai Mian 3.Debey Mian son of Hanif Mian Both residents of village-Hatpokhar, P.S.-Jagdishpur, district-Bhojpur 4.Shashi Bhushan Rai son of Sri Shiv Kumar Rai, resident of village-Bodarhi, P.S.-Dawath, Dist.- Rohtas, presently residing at village-Hatpokhar, P.S.-Jagdishpur, Dist.-Bhojpur. …… …….Opp. Parties. ------- For the petitioner: Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh For the Opp. Party: Mr. Rajni Kant Jha For the State : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 19th February, 2000 passed by Sri Arundhwaj Prasad Singh, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Criminal Revision No.128 of 1999, has preferred the present petition. By the said order dated 19th February, 2000 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the revision which was preferred against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ara in Cr. Case No.933C of 1998/Tr. No.184 of 1999 dismissing the petition under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate without appreciating the materials, which were brought during enquiry, had rejected the complaint and 2 Patna High Court The 13th July,2010. Md.S./NAFR in the same manner the revisional court has approved the said order. 2. Mr.Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the dispute was purely civil in nature and, as such, the complaint was rightly rejected and there is no defect in either of the orders. 3. I have perused the material available on the record. I do not think that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner that too where the petitioner has already lost his revision petition. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. It is made clear that rejection of this petition will not prejudice either of the parties in any suit or proceeding. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)