Criminal Miscellaneous No.17576 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.MATHURA PRASAD 2.Prasidh Prasad @ Prasidh Ram 3.Meet Kumar 4.Ranjan Kumar 5.Kishore Kumar All sons of Sakhi Chand Prasad 6.Shivpati Devi wife of Sakhi Chand Prasad 7.Neelam Devi 8.Tetari Devi 9.Guria Kumari All daughters of Sakhi Chand Prasad, All residents of village-Arwal, P.S.-Arwal, Dist.-Jehanabad. ….. ……Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sapna Devi wife of Mathura Prasad, Resident of village-Arwal, P.S.-Arwal, Dist.-Jehanabad ….. …… Opp. Parties. ------ For the petitioners: None For the State: Mr. A.M.P.Mehta, Addl.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or even to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. The present petition was admitted on 18.11.1999 and while admitting the case, this court had directed that pending disposal of the application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and the order of stay is still continuing. 3. It appears that after getting an order of stay the petitioners have lost their interest and due to that reason none has come forward even to make a prayer for adjournment. 4. Nine petitioners, while invoking inherent 2 jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.11.1998 passed in Complaint Case No.320(C) of 1998 (Trial No.597 of 1999). By the said order the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 498A, 494 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who is wife of petitioner no.1, has filed a complaint petition alleging therein that the accused persons were torturing the complainant for the purpose of extracting dowry. It has also been alleged that during life time of the first wife i.e. the complainant, petitioner no.1 got re-married. On the said allegation the complaint petition was filed. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in support of the complaint case three witnesses were also examined, who supported the case of the complainant. After being satisfied with the evidence brought on the record, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance for the offences as mentioned above. On the basis of materials available on the record of the present case, I am of the view that, while passing the order of cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed no mistake. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 3 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 22nd April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)