IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55041 of 2007 DINESH MANDAL, son of Late Baijnath Mandal, resident of Village- Mairya, Police Station- Hathouri, District-Samastipur -------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Arvind Singh @ Photo Singh, son of Late Nirdhan Singh, resident of Village-Kathumair, Police Station- Simli Bakhtiyarpur, District-Sahrsa ---------------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------------------- For the petitioner: None. For the State : Sri Hirday Pd.Singh, A.P.P. For Opp.Party No.2: Sri Diwakar Pd.Singh, Advocate ----------- 04 27-09-2010 When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Heard Sri Diwakar Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. I have aslo heard Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 6.10.2006 passed by Sri V.K.Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Rosera , Samastipur in T.R.No.1854 of 2006 arising out of C.R.No.740 of 2005. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147,323,379,420,468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging therein that 2 accused persons including the petitioner had impersonated and by forging documents had transferred the land of the petitioner’s wife to one of the co-accused . After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and five witnesses were examined during the enquiry. On perusal of the materials available on record, learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147,323,379,420,468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 submits that the order of cognizance was passed on the basis of materials available on record and there is no error in the order of cognizance. It has further been submitted that the order of cognizance was passed long back on 6.10.2005. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 that even before the court below in the case stage has been changed and now the evidence is going on. Keeping in view the fact that the trial has already commenced as well as keeping in view the materials available on record, I do not find any material on record warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 28.4.2010 stands automatically vacated. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)