CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9656 OF 2001 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- SHAMBHU PRASAD, S/O GAYAN RAM, RESIDENT OF RAXAUL, P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHEORATI DEVI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHORE, P.S. POKHARIA, DISTRICT PARSA(NEPAL). ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. WITH Cr.Misc. No.11922 oF 2001 MOSEMAT MANJURIA @ MADHURI DEVI, D/O JAMUNA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD, RAXAUL, P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHEORATI DEVI, W/O SHAMBHU PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHORE, P.S. POKHARI, DISTRICT PARSA, NEPAL. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For O.P. No.2 : M/S Suraj Samdarshi, Adv. Ram Hdya Singh,Adv. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 in both cases as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. In both cases, the petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.3.2001 passed in T.R. 2 No.1043 of 2001, arising out of Raxaul P.S. Case No.201 of 1998, by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected discharge petition filed on behalf of both petitioners. 3. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. It was a case for the offence under Sections 498 A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner in the first case i.e. Shambhu Prasad was married with the informant and subsequently, during the life time of his first wife, he solemnized marriage with petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.11922 of 2001 i.e. Mosemat Manjuria Kuar @ Madhuri Devi and thereafter, the informant was kicked out from the house. After registering F.I.R., police thoroughly investigated the same and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Magistrate, while hearing on discharge petition, had examined entire case diary and referring number of paragraphs of the case diary, has rejected the petition for discharge. I do not 3 find any ground for interference with the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 12.2.2002 passed in Cr. Misc. No.9656 of 2001 and 19.12.2001 in Cr. Misc. No.11922 of 2001 are hereby automatically come to an end. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 11.10.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.