IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16374 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR @ BINOD KUMAR CHAURASIA, S/O LATE BAIJNATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JALPURA TAPA, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAWAL KISHOR SINGH, ASSISTANT MANAGER, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ARRAH, BRANCH- SANDESH. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 29.6.2010. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order, which was passed long back on 23.1.2007 by F.T.C.II (Additional Session Judge), Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2007. By the said order, the learned court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for remitting back the case to the court of Magistrate for trial. It was argued before the court below that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. I have perused the impugned order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while 2 N.H./ rejecting the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has examined the materials available on record. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge had examined the injury report, which was available in the case diary, which discloses one lacerated wound 2/3” x 1/3” x muscle deep on head and head of skull bleeding. After examining the materials available on record, the court was satisfied that there were sufficient material for framing charge against accused for the offence under Sections 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, directed the accused person to remain physically present in court on 12.2.2008. After perusing the materials available on record including the impugned order, I do not find any material warranting exercise of inherent power in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)