Criminal Miscellaneous No.21307 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. RAMASHISH YADAV @ MOTOR YADAV, SON OF GHARBHARAN YADAV. 2. GHARBHARAN YADAV, SON OF RAMA YADAV. 3. JAGDHARO DEVI, W/O GHARBHARAN YADAV. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SOBHANA, CHHOTAK BELIWAN, P.S. BISHAMBHARPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MALATI DEVI, W/O RAM ASHISH YADAV @ MOTAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF SOBHANA CHHOTAKA BALUWAN, P.S. BISHAMBHARPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : None For the O.P. No.2. : Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra,Adv. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. This case was earlier called out on 23.3.2010. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. It was ordered to list this case on 29.3.2010. Thereafter, the case was repeatedly called, but none appeared. Today, against when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. However, learned counsel Sri Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra is present on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. Three petitioners, while - 2 - invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 29.7.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj in Case No.93 of 1998/Tr. No.799 of 1998. By order dated 29.7.1998, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. In the present petition, the petitioners had taken a ground that on earlier occasion also, a complaint petition was filed vide Complaint Case No.647 of 1998, which was subsequently withdrawn due to compromise between the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that there is no merit in the petition and petition is liable to be rejected. 4. I have examined the complaint petition and materials available on record and also perused the impugned order of cognizance. On perusal of the order of - 3 - cognizance, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate had passed the impugned order after examining the materials available on record and I do not find any error in the impugned order. I have also perused the complaint petition, which discloses the commission of offence as mentioned above. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition has got no merit. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 6. In this case, by order dated 24.9.1998, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court had directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in Case No.93 of 1998/Trial No.799 of 1998 so far as petitioners are concerned, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 25.1.1999, the application was admitted for hearing. This Court further directed that during the pendency of this application, ad interim order dated 25.1.1999 shall continue. Order of stay is still continuing. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay, the - 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 2.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. petitioners have lost their interest in the present case. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)