IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16365 of 2008 MANAS KUMAR SINHA son of late Madan Mohan Sinha, resident of Behind Divisional Hospital Banka, P.S.-Banka, district-Banka. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 1.7.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.2.2008 passed by Sri S.P.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Banka, in Complaint Case No.2015 of 2007. By the said order the learned Magistrate after completing enquiry has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 435/379 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/complainant, while pressing the present petition, submits that the complaint petition was filed for the offences under sections 436 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the facts and circumstances that his shop was burnt by the accused persons in which several articles such as furniture and articles of the shop were burnt to ashes. Accordingly, it was submitted that on the basis of allegation made in the complaint petition itself, the learned Magistrate was required to take cognizance under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code instead of section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that offence under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code is triable by a 2 Court of Sessions. Mrs. Veen Rani Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. I am of the view that Code of Criminal Procedure itself prescribes that if during enquiry or trial, a Magistrate is satisfied that offence alleged is triable by a Court of Sessions, it can commit the case to the Court of Sessions. Since there is already remedy available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate for this court to exercise inherent jurisdiction in such a matter. It need not to be elaborated that this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to exercise power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if during trial or even at the stage of charge the court is prima facie satisfied that material brought on record is sufficient to indicate commission of offence under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, it is expected that the learned Magistrate will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. With the above observation, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)