IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9703 of 2011 1. Shashi Ruia, son of Late Nand Kishore Ruia, Chairman, Essar Oil Limited, Essar House-11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034 2. Ravi Ruia, son of Late Nand Kishore Ruia, Vice-Chairman, Essar Oil Limited, Essar House-11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400034 3. Prashant Ruia, son of Shashi Ruia, Director, Essar Oil Limited, Essar House-11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. ……………….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Prem Kumar Singh, son lf Late Mahendra Narain Singh, Proprietor of M/s Baba Bishwanath Petroleum, situated at Babhandi, G.T. Road, Aurangabad ……………… Opposite parties ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr .Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP For the Opposite Party: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate *********************** 06. 16.11.2011 The Court is constrained to record that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has not appreciated the Order of the High Court passed in the Complaint Case No. 1161 of 2008, when an Order taking cognizance was challenged before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6699 of 2009. Whatever be the nature of the dispute which led to filing of the complaint case, but based on a compromise-petition executed between the parties, the Order taking cognizance in the complaint case and all further proceedings arising therefrom stood quashed by virtue of the Order dated 28.10.2009. I do not feel that there was any kind of ambiguity with regard to the Order of the High Court as to 2 the fate of such a criminal complaint case and the Order taking cognizance against the accused persons. If this Court wanted to make a distinction between one accused and the other, the Court would have categorically recorded its opinion in the said Order that the Order in question would be confined to a set of accused and not for the others. But since no such distinction was made by the High Court in the Order in question and it was unambiguous in nature the Court fails to understand as to how the Chief Judicial Magistrate decided to read something in the Order of the High Court which is nothing less than impropriety on his part. In fact, if the C.J.M. felt that there was any ambiguity in the Order or a clarification was required on the issue with regard to the nature of the Order, the proper course for the Chief Judicial Magistrate would have been to seek a clarification from the High Court, which would have been readily given. But to innovate in the manner in which he has done, he has surely transgressed or over-reached the Orders of this Court. In view of the same, the Court is again forced to record that all proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in relation to the Complaint Case No. 1161 of 2008 stood quashed if not stands quashed against one and all accused and not limited to “A” or “B”. The Order issuing summons to any accused, 3 therefore, was uncalled for and unwarranted. The application is allowed and the Order dated 11.02,2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1161 of 2008 stands quashed. Let a copy of this Order be marked to learned Inspecting Judge, Aurangabad for needful. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)