Criminal Miscellaneous No.22796 OF 1998 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- AJIT KUMAR SAHA son of Sri Bishwamohan Saha, Resident of village-Damgara, P.S.-Damdaha, Dist.-Purnea. At present working as Assistasnt Director, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Patna, Dist.-Patna. ….. ….. Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Satrughan Thakur son of Sri Ram Sunder Thakur, resident of village-Birta, P.S.-Nautan, Dist.-West Champaran. ….. ….Opp.Parties. -------- For the petitioner: None. For opposite party no.2: Sri Prakash Srivastava For the State: Mr.Suraj Prasad Singh, APP -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. On 25.3.2010 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. It was indicated in the order that since 12.1.1999 the stay of further proceeding in the court below is continuing. However, as a last indulgence the case was adjourned to 29th March, 2010 and since then the case is running on the daily cause list. Today also on repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the entire case i.e.Complaint Case No.154C of 1996 registered for the offences 2 under sections147, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In the prayer portion of the petition also it has been asserted to quash the entire prosecution case i.e. Complaint Case No.154C of 1996 pending in the court of Sri J. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate Bettiah. 3. Shri Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, vehemently opposed this petition. He submits that the case is at initial stage and the learned Magistrate has only taken cognizance of the offences. Moreover, he submits that the complaint petition categorically makes it clear that the petitioner has committed the offence of assault and abuse and, accordingly, he makes a prayer to reject this petition. 4. On perusal of the record it appears that after filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and thereafter five more witnesses were examined in support of the complainant’s case. After examining the complaint petition, the statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and examination of five witnesses of the complainant, the learned Magistrate, by a detailed order has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 147, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In absence of any assistance from the petitioner’s side, I myself have examined the materials available on record of the case. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that offence is made out against this petitioner. I have also examined the order of cognizance dated 28.4.1997. I do not find 3 any error in the order of cognizance. 5. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a case vide Bettiah Town P.S. Case No.38 of 1996 on an allegation that while he was in office, the complainant indulged in committing offence under sections 144, 148, 323, 379, 504 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the present complaint petition, it was alleged that the petitioner was recommended for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher and he was to join in Bipin High School, Bettiah. It was alleged that despite being selected the complainant was being harassed by the official of Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bettiah. It was alleged that on the date of occurrence while he met the petitioner and enquired on the point of appointment he was abused by the petitioner and on the direction of the petitioner he was even assaulted by the other co-accused. In the complaint petition allegation of commission of offence of theft was also made. 7. On perusal of the complaint petition, I am of the view that the complaint discloses the commission of offence. Similarly, I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined and in his support he examined five witnesses. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference by this court that too while exercising power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the 4 petition stands rejected. 8. In this case by order dated 12.1.1999 while admitting this case, this court directed that during the pendency of this application further proceeding of the case so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall remain stayed. 9. In view of rejection of this petition, order of stay stands automatically vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 2nd April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)