CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5760 OF 2001 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.SARANDEO SINGH son of Ramanugrah Singh 2.Satyendra Singh son of Sri Sarang deo Singh, resident of village-Gopalpur, P.S.-Naubatpur, District-Patna …….. …….Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……. ……Opp.Parties. -------- For the petitioners: None For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. I have heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. 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 15.11.2000 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge,-I, Danapaur in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1984. By the said order the learned trial judge has rejected discharge petition filed on behalf of both the petitioners. The petitioners have taken the stand that for the same occurrence the petitioners were made accused in two cases. In one case they were put on trial along with other accused persons and finally they were acquitted. On the strength of acquittal in earlier case, the petitioners were emboldened to file a petition for discharge in the present case. While hearing the petition for discharge, the learned Assistant 2 Patna High Court The 10th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR Sessions Judge had examined the materials on record and was satisfied that there were two distinct cases and, as such, no benefit was granted to the petitioners. 3. I have also perused the materials available on the record particularly the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the order of rejection of discharge petition dated 15.11.2000. Accordingly, this court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and, as such, the petition stands rejected. 4. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay granted on 28.11.2001 stands automatically vacated. 5. Since the matter was kept pending for a long period before this court, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)