Criminal Miscellaneous No.23851 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- MALLICK ASGHAR HASHMI SON OF SADIQUE HASHMI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MURARPUR, P.S. KOTWALI IN THE DISTRICTOF GAYA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DR. GOVIND PRASAD SON OF LATE DR. ROHAN DAS RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GAIWAL BIGHA, P.S. RAMPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF GAYA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioner : None. For the State : Mr. Parmanand Prasad,A.P.P ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. When this case was earlier called out on 25.3.2010, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It was indicated in order dated 25.3.2010 that the petitioner is enjoying the stay order in respect of cognizance since 9.2.1999. However, the case was ordered to be listed on 29th March, 2010. It was also made it clear that if on that next again, none appears on behalf of the petitioner, this petition will be finally disposed of on the basis of materials available on the record. 2. Today, again on repeated call, - 2 - none has come forward either to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. It appears that after obtaining an order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case. 3. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.11.1995 passed by Sri V.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No.C-543 of 1995/T.R. No.551 of 1995. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 120 B, 500, 502, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. I have examined the complaint petition as well as impugned order of cognizance. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that with a view to malign image of the complainant, who was a leading doctor of Gaya made defamatory publication. While passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had examined the - 3 - materials available on record and by a detailed reason, he has taken cognizance of the offences. I do not find any error in the order dated 20.11.1995, whereby the court had taken cognizance. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and petition stands rejected. 6. In this case, while issuing notice to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 9.2.1999, this Court directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by order dated 12.4.1999, the petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting the case, this Court directed that till final disposal, further proceeding in Complaint Case No.C-543 of 1995/T.R. No.551 of 1995 in the court below as regards the petitioner shall remain stayed. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. - 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 2.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)