Criminal Miscellaneous No.6295 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------- 1. Satyendra Choudhary 2. Madan Choudhary, 3. Ram Bachan Choudhary, All sons of Basudeo Choudhary. 4. Raju Choudhary, Son of Shri Satyendra Choudhary 5. Barmabati Devi, Wife of Shri Basudeo Choudhary 6. Shanti Devi, Wife of Satyendra Choudhary 7. Ramabati Devi, Wife of Shri Madan Choudhary 8. Lalita Devi, Wife of Shri Ram Bachan Choudhary, All residents of Village-Kushi, Police Station-Karakat ( Gorari), Dstrict-Rohtas ---------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bishwa Mohan Choudhary, Son of Shambhu Sharan Choudhary, resident of Village- Kushi, Police Station-Karakat ( Gorari), District-Rohtas --- Opp.Parties. _________ For the petitioners: None For Opp.Party No.2: S/Sri Anand K. Ojha, Ashok Kr. Karn. Advocates. _________ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Yesterday, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this application or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, it was recorded in the order that if no one appears on the next day on behalf of the petitioners, the case will be decided on the basis of materials available on the record. Today, again when the case was called out, none has turned up on behalf of the petitioners. However, Sri Anand K.Ojha , learned counsel appears on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. 2 2. The petitioners , while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 4.9.1998 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas at Sasaram in Complaint Case No.143(C) of 1998. By the said order , the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147,323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It was alleged in the complaint petition that while informant was going to market, he was intercepted by the accused persons and was assaulted. In the said occurrence, it was alleged that Rs.300/- was forcibly taken from the pocket of the complainant. 4. After enquiry was conducted in the complaint case, the learned Magistrate on the basis of materials available on the record by its order dated 4.9.1998 took cognizance of the offences as mentioned above. 5. I have examined the complaint petition , materials available on the record as well as the order dated 4.9.1998 passed by the learned Magistrate. I do not find that while passing the order of cognizance, the learned Magistrate has committed any mistake. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. On 13.8.1999 while admitting the present case, 3 this Court had directed that during the pendency of this case, further proceedings in Complaint Case No.143(C) of 1998 in the court of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas at Sasaram , shall remain stayed. 8. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 13th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )