CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31274 OF 2001 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- YOGENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE RAJDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOLAKPUR, JAGDISHPUR (MOHIMPUR), P.S. HULASH GANJ, DISTRICT JAHANABAD. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mrs. Veena Rani Prasad, 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 petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Smt. Veena Rani Prasad appears on behalf of the State. 2. I have also perused the materials available on record. 3. The sole 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 16.6.2001 passed by Shri S.C. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad in Trial No.1099 of 2001 arising out of Ghosi P.S. Case No.216 of 2000. By the said order, the 2 learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 341, 448, 323, 337, 318, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 4. I have perused the materials available on record. Initially, F.I.R. was registered against seven accused persons including the petitioner. After registering the F.I.R. vide Ghosi P.S. Case No.216 of 200, on 8.8.2000, the police investigated the same. During investigation, sufficient materials were found showing involvement of petitioner and one Sunita Devi. However, the case in respect of other accused persons was found un-true and thereafter, Charge Sheet No.10 of 2001 dated 28.2.2001 was submitted. On receipt of the charge sheet along with case diary, the learned Magistrate examined the same. The learned Magistrate had examined several paragraphs of the case diary and differing with the police report has taken cognizance of offence against all the accused persons including this petitioner. 5. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this 3 Court. After going through the order impugned and materials available on record, the court finds no defect in the same. In the opinion of the court, it is not a fit case for exercising inherent power in favour of the petitioner that too, against the order of cognizance. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 20.5.2002 stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original case diary, which was earlier received in this case, be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 18.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.