IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3045 of 2010 ***** Sanjeev Kumar son of Ramakant Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla New Agarwa, P.S. Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …. …. Opposite party ----------- 2. 29.1.2010. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr. Rev. No.44/09, whereby he has declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Motihari in Trial No.2796/08. The learned Sessions Judge in his order has held as follows: - “The learned P.P. incharge supported the impugned order. He has also submitted that the material in the case diary vide supplementary case diary para 30, 63, 68, 79, 90 and 93 shows the complicity of the petitioner in the aforesaid incident demanding rangdari through Mobile Phone No. 9905869619 which sim was made available to the accused by him, also shows his criminal conspiracy in the alleged incident, and that from perusal of charge sheet and case diary it appears that petitioner was remanded in the case by the name of Sanjiv Kumar son of Rama Kant Prasad Singh and investigation also concluded with the same name and parentage. Thus mentioning of his father name as Ramchandra Pd. Singh in column 11 of the - 2 - final form is simply a clerical mistake. On perusal of the case diary in general and in aforesaid paras in particular I also find that there is sufficient material for framing of charge against the petitioner also. Accordingly, I find and hold that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly this revision application stands dismissed and disposed of at admission stage itself.” Criticising the aforesaid order it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a fit case for discharge as he was only a shopkeeper of mobile phones and his complicity in the crime can remotely be thought of. Upon perusal of the order framing charge and order of refusal to interfere, I am of the view it would be a matter of trial. Hence I decline to interfere. While declining to interfere I am only inclined to direct that the learned trial Magistrate will be well advised to dispose of the trial by the end of June, 2010. The disposal shall be intimated to the Registry of this Court. The Cr. Misc. is accordingly disposed of. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ)