Criminal Miscellaneous No.17445 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- MOHAN PRASAD SON OF LATE CHAMARI RAM, THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S HARI PRASAD UMASHANKAR, RESIDENT OF TEKARI ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT GAYA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ... ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. On 20.4.2010, on repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press the petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, by order dated 20.4.2010, it was made clear that if on the next day, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, then this case will be decided on the basis of materials available on the record of this case. Today, when the case was called out, none has come forward either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. In this case, by order dated - 2 - 8.12.1998, while admitting this case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this case, the proceedings in Trial No.535 of 1998 arising out of G.R. No.461 of 1985 shall remain stayed and order of stay is till continuing. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case. 3. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner in G.R. Case No.461 of 1995/Trial Case No.535 of 1998 pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. 4. I have examined the materials available on the record as well as the impugned order whereby discharge petition dated 23.2.1998 filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was directed to remain present on 21.8.1998 - 3 - for the purpose of framing of the charge. I do not find any defect in the order rejecting the discharge petition. 5. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. 8. In this case earlier, lower court records were called for and the same was received and is lying along with the records of the present case. The office is directed to remit back the lower court records to the court below forthwith. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 21st April,2010 N.A.F.R./Md.S.