Criminal Miscellaneous No.4760 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------------- 1. GOPAL PRASAD SAH , Son of Late Ishawar Sah, resident of Village- Dhamoon, P.S. Sahapur, Patori, District- Samastipur, at present residing at Plot No.1980, Chintamaniswar III Line, P.s. Laxmi Sagar, Bhubaneshwar-751006, District- Khurda( Orissa) 2. Dr. Ram Lonin Prasad, Sah, M.B.B.S. ( Pat) D.C.P.( Pat) Retired Deputy Superintendent , S.K.M.C.H ( Muzaffarpur) Son of Late Mouzi Lal Sah, resident of Village- Dhamoon, P.s. Sahpur Patori, District-Samastipur, at present as resident of Medical Officer, Ram Krishna Mission Tuberculosis Sanatorium, P.S. Ram Krishna Sanatorium, District-Ranchi ------------ Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Urmila Devi wife of Sheo Prasad Sah, resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S. Phatuha, District-Patna, at present residing at Gopalpath No.1, Mahnar Bazar, Ward No.6, P.s. Mahanar, District- Vaishali. ------------------------ Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Shiv Shankar Azad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Hriday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Two 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 21.9.1998/ 23.9.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate , Vaishali in G.R.No.2491of 1997/ Tr.No.668/98, arising out of Mahnar P.S. Case No.116 of 1997. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341,323,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The short facts of the case is that the informant, Smt. Urmila Devi gave a written complain before the Officer Incharge of 2 Mahnar Police Station disclosing therein that while she was returning from the office along with her son, she was intercepted by four accused persons , who came on two motorcycles. Thereafter it was alleged that among them she identified both the petitioners. After intercepting the informant, accused persons asked her to make compromise the case. On being asked, the informant replied that for that very purpose they may talk to her husband. It was further alleged that petitioner no.1 caught hold of neck of the informant and thereafter snatched a golden chain valued Rs.5000/-. So far petitioner no.2 is concerned, it was alleged that he snatched ear-ring from the informant. While the son of informant opposed , he was also assaulted. The informant raised hulla and, as such, many people arrived there. After noticing the same, the accused persons fled away by their motorcycles. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and thereafter chargesheet was submitted by the police. 3. The learned Magistrate, after examining the police paper, took cognizance of offences under Section 341,323,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 23.9.1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken stand that the petitioners were falsely implicated by the informant. It has also been asserted in the petition that petitioner no.1 was residing continuously at Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) and he was doing business there and, as such, on the ground of alibi ,petitioner no.1 in his petition has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. 5 After registering the F.I.R., the police had 3 investigated the case and thereafter chargesheet was subnmitted. From the orders of cognizance it does not appear that while passing the said order, the learned Magistrate has committed error. Moreover, it would not be advisable to accept the plea of alibi of the petitioner at this stage. Such plea can be taken by the accused at the appropriate stage during the trial. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned herein above, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. The present petition was admitted on 9.8.1999 and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceedings as regards the petitioners in Mahnar P.S. Case No.116 of 97 in the court below shall remain stayed. 8. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the stay order stands automatically vacated. Let this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 12th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )