IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12746 of 2008 1. JITU YADAV SON OF SRI GOPAL YADAV 2. GOPAL YADAV SON OF RAMBAKSH YADAV BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAZMA TOLA, P.S. MUFFASSIL, BETTIAH, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN. … … PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MOST. SUDAMA DEVI WIFE OF LATE BUNNI DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAZMA TOLA, P.S. MUFFASSIL, BETTIAH, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN. … … OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 23.6.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance, which was passed long back on 6.1.2003. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 341, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same occurrence the present complaint was filed. However, earlier a first information report was filed vide Muffasil P.S. Case No.188 of 2002. On query, Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has argued that let notice be issued to opposite party no.2. In this case, on perusal of Annexure-4, which is a copy of F.I.R. of Muffasil P.S. Case No.188 of 2002, it appears that the informant in this case was Sant Das. However, complaint petition was filed by Most. Sudama Devi. It has been submitted by learned 2 counsel for the petitioners that the complainant in the present case is mother of the informant of Muffasil P.S. Case No.188 of 2002. Be that as it may, after a lapse of more than seven years from the order of cognizance, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioners and the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)