Criminal Miscellaneous No.3193 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- Manu Tiwary @ Gaurav Tiwary, Son of Manoj Tiwary, R/O Mokar, P.S. Agrer, District- Rohtas -- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Vivek Kumar S/O Late Shiv Chand Sah R/O Mokar, P.S. Agrer , District-Rohtas --- Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioner : Sri B.P.Pandey, Sr. Advocate For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.7.1999 passed in G.R.Case No.522 of 1999 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram . By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 302,448,341,323,337 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In the case, F.I.R. was lodged against accused persons including the petitioner and after registering the F.I.R. the police investigated the case and submitted chargesheet and thereafter by the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 302,448,341,323,347 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. After the order of cognizance, the petitioner filed present petition, which was admitted on 18.2.2000 and while admitting, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in G.R. Case No.522/99 so far as this petitioner is concerned, shall remain stayed. 4. It appears that subsequently an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1048 of 2001 was filed on behalf of Opp.Party no.2, who is the informant of the case i.e. Agrer (Sasaram) P.S. Case No.192 of 1999 for vacating the order of stay. It was prayed in the Interlocutory Application that even during the pendency of this petition, the learned Magistrate may be directed to commit the case for trial in accordance with law. The prayer was allowed by an order dated 18.2.2002 and this Court directed that the trial judge shall proceed with the trial and record the evidence but shall not deliver the judgment during the pendency of this application. This Court further directed to expedite the hearing by its order dated 18.2.2002. However, after lapse of about eight years from the order dated 18.2.2002 the present case was taken up for hearing only today i.e. after more than eight years. 5. I have examined the materials available on the record. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of offences by order dated 13.7.1999 has committed no error. The record shows that the petitioner was one of the named accused in an occurrence, in which father of the informant was killed. Of course, at the time of occurrence, the father of the 3 informant had received injury but he died on way, while he was being carried to Varanasi for better treatment. The F.I.R. i.e. Annexure-1 itself categorically describes the role played by the petitioner during the crime. After investigating the case and collecting materials, which shows the involvement of the accused persons including the petitioner, the police submitted chargesheet vide Annexure-2 to the petition. 6. In the present petition, the petitioner has taken a plea that the postmortem report of the deceased does not corroborate the allegation of the prosecution. Such plea can be examined during the trial of the case and this Court is not required to examine such defence that, too, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 19th May, 2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )