Crimnal Miscellaneous No.16111 of 1999 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- UMASHANKAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA son of late Shimangal Prasad, resident of Station Chauk East of Urwashi Cinema, P.S.-Bettiah town, Dist-East Champaran. ……. ……. Petitioner Versus NAWAL KISHORE SINGH son of Ramchandra Singh of BallapurP.S.-Ghorasahan, Dist.-East Champaran. ……. ………. Opp. Party For the petitioner: None. For the State: Mr. Berij Kishore Prasad --------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. On 23.4.2010, on repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, as a last indulgence the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was indicated that in this case since 8.9.1999 the interim order of stay is continuing. It was further made clear that, if on the next day no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the case will be decided on the basis of materials available on the record of this case. 2. Today again, on repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. It appears that, after obtaining an order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case and , as such, none has come forward even to make a prayer for adjournment. 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 4.12.1998 passed in 2 Complaint Case No.490 of 1997. By the said order dated 4.12.1998 the learned Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 406, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After examining the complaint petition as well as evidence of four witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the complainant and supported the case of the complainant, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 4.12.1998, after being satisfied that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner, took cognizance of the offences, as mentioned above, and after taking cognizance the learned Magistrate passed the order for issuance of summons for securing the attendance of the accused persons. 5. On perusal of the impugned order as well as examining the materials on record, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has committed no error. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 26th April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)