IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9530 of 2010 ***** Suman Prasad Sah @ Bablu son of Vishwanath Prasad Sah, resident of Village Chakdiwan, P.S. Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Umakant Singh son of Ugeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village Bhadaus, P.S. Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. ------------ 2. 19.3.2010. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 4.2.2010, whereby the learned trial Magistrate has framed charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that if the allegations are taken in entirety the charge could not have been framed. It is urged by him the allegation was that the complainant had sold the vehicle to the petitioner and he had not paid the amount but actually the vehicle was in a garage as has been reported by the police on earlier occasion. - 2 - Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution submitted that the learned Magistrate after examining the witnesses before charge has found that charge should be framed under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the same does not suffer from any fallacy. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I am of the considered opinion it is not a fit case where the charge should be quashed on the ground that continuance of the trial would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. What is submitted by Mr. Singh is in the realm of defence and needless to say the same can be pressed into service during trial. With the aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ)