IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27319 of 1999 1. GANGADHAR THAKUR 2. TEJ NARAYAN THAKUR 3. WAKIL THAKUR ALL SONS OF JANAK THAKUR OF VILLAGE BIRCHAPRA, P.S. PIPRA KOTHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHANTI DEVI W/O SHAMBHU SHARAN PRASAD OF VILLAGE BANGARI, P.S. PIPRA KOTHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr.Adv. For the State : Mr. S. Dayal, A.P.P. ----------- 5. 9.9.2010. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.9.1999 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr. Revision No.387/22 of 1998/1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 18.5.1998 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Motihar in Case No.301 M of 1998, whereby the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had directed for issuance of notice to the concerned party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the 2 petitioners had also filed revision petition against the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, prima facie, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition, which according to the court, is a second revision, but filed in the garb of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides this, against the order dated 18.5.1998, whereby in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate had directed for issuance of notice, under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was specific provision to raise objection before the concerned Magistrate. Instead of availing remedy available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners firstly filed a revision, which was rejected and thereafter, the present petition was filed. Fact remains that the present petition was once rejected due to non-prosecution. However, it was restored and matter 3 N.H./ remained pending before this Court for a long time. The court is not inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)