IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16444 of 2008 1.AWADHESHWAR SINGH son of late Balam Singh 2.Manish Kumar Singh son of Awadheshwar Singh 3.Ajay Singh son of Awadheshwar Singh All are residents of village-Chandwara Ghat, P.S.-Ahiyapur, Dist.-Muzaffarpur …… …..Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur 3.The officer-in-charge of police station Ahiyapur, P.S.Ahiyapur, Dist.-Muzaffarpur 4.Satender Singh son of late Balam Singh, resident of village-Chandwara Ghat, P.S.-Ahiyapur, Dist.-Muzaffarupr …. ….. Opp. Parties ----------- 3. 1.7.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Three 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 8.1.2008 passed in Aahiyapur P.S. Case No.304 of 2003 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under sections 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, submits that it is a case of family dispute. There is a case and counter case. The informant of the present case i.e. Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.304 of 2003 is none else but own brother of petitioner no.1. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the present first information report was filed by his brother due to family dispute without any truth. 2 Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. From the record it appears that the present first information report was filed in the year 2003 with specific allegation of assault by Katta on the forehead of the informant. Katta blow was given by petitioner no.1. Similarly, in the occurrence one person also received injury by Farsa blow. After registering first information report, the police investigated the same. First information report was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners in paragraph-5(iv) of the petition has stated that the police has granted bail and thereafter final form/charge sheet was submitted by the investigating officer under sections147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate by order dated 9.2.2004 has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case record to the file of Sri K.B.Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, for commitment. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 9.2.2004 a revision petition was preferred by the petitioners vide Cr. Revision No.112 of 2004. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Muzaffarpur, after hearing the parties and considering the fact that in the first information report itself there 3 was specific allegation, was of the view that the provisions under sections 147, 148 and 149 was not applicable and, accordingly, criminal revision petition was partly allowed. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 8.1.2008 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under sections 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials on the record, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent power in favour of the petitioners that too at the stage of cognizance. In this case, first information report was lodged long back in the year 2003 and twice the petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance. Firstly, by filing criminal revision which was partly allowed and on second occasion the present petition was filed. Keeping in view the fact that it is an old case, it is desirable to direct the concerned court to proceed with the case expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)