IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16465 of 2008 LADDU LAL RAI son of late Bodhi Rai, resident of Village-Naurangpur, P.S.-Mahnar, Dist.-Vaishali ……. ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Chinta Devi wife of Bishwanath Rai, resident of Village-Hetanpur Dhamang, P.S.-Patori, Dist-Samastipur …… …..Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 29.6.2010. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed in paragraph-1 of the petition which is as follows: “This is an application for quashing the orders taking cognizance dated 19.7.2006 to 20.7.2007 against the petitioner in Mahnar P.S. Case No.128 of 1998 registered under sections 498A, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.” I have perused the materials available on the record including the entire petition. From the materials available on the record it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that when accused persons after sprinkling Kerosene oil on the body of the daughter of the complainant put fire and while she was inside the room, this petitioner along with others closed the door from outside and thereafter the daughter of the complainant died. After filing of the complaint petition, the same was transferred to the police for its registration and investigation and, accordingly, first information report vide Mahnar P.S. Case No.128 of 1998 was registered for the offences under sections 498A, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the first information report the 2 petitioner’s name figures as accused no.3. It appears from the averment made in the petition that while investigation was going on some of the senior Police Officer had passed some orders in favour of the petitioner keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was considered as a social worker. However, finally by the order of Superintendent of Police on 28.8.2002 charge sheet was submitted even against the petitioner and other three accused persons for the offences under sections 304B, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After filing of the charge sheet, it appears from the averment made in the petition that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and, thereafter, process under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also issued. However, till date of filing of the petition, it appears that the petitioner did not appear before the court. I do not find any material warranting this court to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that in this case charge sheet against the petitioner was submitted in the year 2002 and despite issuance of process the appearance of this petitioner has not been secured, it is necessary to direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to take steps so that the petitioner may be produced before the court concerned. With the above observation and direction the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)