Criminal Miscellaneous No.4830 OF 1998 ----- In matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ YOGENDRA PRASAD YADAV son of Late Huro Prasad Yadav resident of village-Birajpur, P.S.Sangrampur, Dist.Munger, at present Lalji Bhawan, Fort Area Munger. …. …..Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Narayan Singh son of late Raghubar Narayan Singh Resident of village-Udiaan Dalip Mahal Purabsarai, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Munger, Managing Trustee Ray Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh Trust Estate Munger. ------ For the petitioner: None. For opposite Party No.: Mr.Kumar Uday Singh For the State: Mr.Suraj Prasad Singh: APP ----- P R E S E N T The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar. ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. The case was called out twice yesterday but none appeared either to press the petition or to make a prayer for pass over. Today again when the case was called out none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the opposite party is present. 2. In this case order of cognizance passed on 4.11.1997 was challenged before this court and by order dated 6.3.1998 order of stay of further proceeding before the court below was passed and the same interim order is still continuing. 3. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), has challenged the order dated 4.11.1997 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, whereby cognizance of the offences under sections 120B, 379, 2 420, 511, 465, 467, 568, 471, 474 and 477A of the Cr.P.C. was taken. 4. I have examined the complaint petition which categorically indicates commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons. Though there is no error in the order of cognizance, the accused persons succeeded in stalling the proceeding for quite a long time. The order was passed in the year 1997 and since 3rd March, 1998 the stay order is continuing. I may indicate that at such initial stage one is not entitled to approach this court particularly in view of the fact that Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes several remedies. The order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioner and due to interim order he succeeded in stalling the proceeding for such a long time. 5. I do not find any error in the impugned order. On the contrary the complaint petition itself discloses the case against the accused persons and, as such, it is not advisable for this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in favour of the accused persons. This power is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of the present petition,the interim order of stay which was granted on 6.3.1998 stands automatically vacated. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court, The 19th March,2010 Md.S./NAFR. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.) 3