Criminal Miscellaneous No.21166 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---- 1. MD. MAJAR ALAM @ MD. MANJAR ALAM @ CHUNNA KHAN, SON OF MD. SAJID KHAN. 2. SABIHA RANA, WIFE OF MD. MANJAR ALAM @ CHUNNA KHAN. BOTH RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA- NARGA, POST OFFICE- CHAMPANAGAR, POLICE STATION – NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 3. MD. SAJID KHAN @ MD. SAJID, SON OF LATE FAKIR MOHAMMAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- KABIRPUR, POLICE STATION NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. CHEDI LAL GOENKA, SON OF LATE PURANMAL GOENKA, PARTNER OF M/S AMARNATH NARAYAN PRASAD, HARDOE DAS LANE, SUJAGANJ, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioners : None For the Opposite Party No.2 : None ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. No one appears either to press the petition or tomake a prayer for adjournment. 2. Three petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had come with a prayer to quash the criminal prosecution in Complaint Case No.877 of 1998 pending in the court of Sri K.N. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur. It was also 2 prayed to quash the order dated 2.9.1998 whereby court had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. It appears that immediately after passing of order of cognizance, petitioners aforementioned rushed to this Court by filing the present petition. By order dated 24.9.1998, while issuing notice to the opposite party no.2, this Court ordered that in the meanwhile, further proceedings in Complaint Case No.877 of 1998, so far as the petitioners are concerned, shall remain stayed. On 24.9.1998, while order of issuance of notice was issued, it was submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioners were ready to make good the money in lieu of the cheque, which was alleged to have bounced. Subsequently, by order dated 31.3.1999, the petition was admitted for hearing and it was directed that till the disposal of this application, further proceedings in court below in Complaint Case No.877 of 1998 shall remain stayed. Despite valid service of notice, the opposite party no.2 has not appeared. From the 3 record, it is also not clear as to whether petitioners had taken any steps in the light of undertaking given on their behalf on 24.9.1998 in respect of making payment of the cheque amount, which had bounced, neither any supplementary affidavit to this effect has been filed nor any one has appeared before this Court on behalf of petitioners to intimate regarding the payment. It appears that after getting the interim order of stay of the proceeding, the petitioners have lost their interest in the present case. 4. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that petitioners had cheated the opposite party no.2/complainant and even though they made some payment to opposite party no.2 through cheque, same was not honoured by the Bank and accordingly, as per allegation of the complainant, petitioners had committed offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter, two witnesses were also examined in support of a complaint which is evident from the perusal of the impugned order of cognizance. 4 PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 23.3.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. 5. I have examined the materials available on record and also perused the order taking cognizance. I feel that the learned Magistrate, after examine the materials available on records, has rightly taken cognizance of the offences as indicated above. I do not find any error in the impugned order. I also find sufficient materials on record to suggest commission of offences by the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)