Criminal Miscellaneous No.4423 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- SHANKAR PRASAD son of late Lala Prasad, resident of Palignj, P.S.-Paliganj, Dist.-Patna …. …… Petitioner. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Mani Mohan Prasad, Officer Incharge Rani Talab, Police Station(Bikram), through Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna ….. …..Opp.party ------ For the petitioner: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Sr.Adv. For the State: Mr.Hriday Prasad Singh, APP. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.11.1998 passed by Sri A.J.Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in G.R. No.778 of 1994/Tr. No.655 of 1998 arising out of Bikram P.S. Case No.154 of 1994. By the said order the learned Magistrate, had rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge. 2. Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order rejecting the discharge petition, submits that the learned Magistrate, while passing the order on his discharge petition, had not applied his mind and in a mechanical manner he has rejected the petition. He, while referring to annexure-1 i.e. first information report of Bikarm P.S. Case No.154 of 1994, submits that even in 2 the first information report the Officer Incharge, who is informant of the case, has mentioned that a quotation was produced by one of the accused persons which was issued by this petitioner. He submits that in the said quotation engine number was also mentioned. He submits that it is unbelievable that while issuing a quotation one can put engine number over it. He submits that without any material the police, to the reasons best known to him, has falsely implicated the petitioner. On these grounds learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 3. I have also perused the order dated 21.11.1998 whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition. While rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has assigned a detailed reason. After going through the impugned order, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has committed no error while rejecting the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge. 4. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition. This petition stands rejected. 5. By order dated 31.5.1999 while admitting the present petition, this court had directed that pending disposal of this application further proceeding in G.R. No.778 of 1994/635 of 1998, arising out of Bikram P.S. Case No.154 of 1994, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, shall remain stayed. 6. In view of rejection of the present petition, the order of interim stay stands automatically vacated. 3 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 8th April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)