CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8785 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- SUBH KARAN PRASAD BUBNASon of Late Mahadeo Prasad Bubna, resident of Jhajhihat Bazar, P.S. Pupri, District- Sitamarhi -- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Muslim Zia, the then Circle Officer, Pupri, District-Sitamarhi, at present D.C.L.R., at and P.S. Biharsharif, District-Nalanda 3. Satya Narain Chaudhary, the then B.D.O., Pupri, District-Sitamarhi, at present posted in Department of Personnel, Old Secretariat,Patna 4. Hira Lal, the then S.D.O. Pupri, Sitamarhi at present D.D.C. Buxar 5. Jagarnath Chaudhary, the then D.C.L.R. Pupri, Sitamarhi at present Director, Industries Department, Darbhanga 6. Arbind Kumar Thakur, Officer Incharge, Pupri Police Station, Sitamarhi, at present Officer Incharge , Sangrampur Police Station, District-East Champaran 7. Prakash Chandra Gupta Son of Sant Prasad Gupta 8. Suresh Chandra Gupta, Son of Sant Prasad Gupta, both residents of Jhajhihat Bazar, P.S. Pupri, District-Sitamarhi --- Opp.Parties. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha No.2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos.7 and 8 and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.1.1996 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.C1/326/89. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint Petition filed under Sections 147,148,324,342,380,379,427,447 and 448 of 2 the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Criminal Revision No.104 of 1996/ 103 of 1997, whereby the revision preferred against the rejection order of cognizance was rejected by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge. 3. Without going into the merit of the case, keeping in view the fact that in the complaint petition, the alleged date of occurrence has been mentioned as 13.7.1989, the Court considers that the matter is stale one and no purpose would be served to interfere with either of the orders or to direct the Opp.Parties to participate in the criminal proceeding before the court below. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 20th August,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)