RAMACHANDRIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition filed by the State under Section 482 Cr. P. C. as long back as 1-10-1986 is finally disposed of on merits at the stage of admission itself as the respondents-accused to whom notices were ordered on the point of admission have remained exparte. ( 2 ) SRI. C. H. Jadhav, learned High Courtgovernment Pleader, is heard and the records arc perused. ( 3 ) THIS Criminal Petition relates to an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC which is said to have taken place at 8-30 p. m. on 17-4-1982 at a place called "sowbhag Bridge" coming within the jurisdiction of Gulbarga chowk Police Station. The alleged offence was that when one Nayeemuddin came near "sowbhag bridge" on his way to bazaar, four unknown persons came from the opposite side and started asking him as to what right he had in the land of Jani Miyan and while so asking, they assaulted him on his face and on his back with their hands. The said Nayeemuddin did not know the identity of those persons at the time he was abused and assaulted. Later, he came to know that those persons were the respondents herein. He lodged a complaint in respect of that incident at Chowk Police Station at Gulbarga at 11 a. m. on 18-4-1982. On the basis of that complaint, a case in Crime No. 138/82 was registered at chowk Police Station for an offence under section 506 IPC against the respondents-accused, and F. I. R. was sent to the Court on the same day. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was also submitted in the Court of the j. M. F. C. Gulbarga on 19-4-1982 against the respondents for an offence under Section 506 ipc and it was registered in C. C. No. 3452/82. As the other accused had already appeared, the learned Magistrate ordered reissue of summons to A- 4. At that stage, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a Revision Petition before the Sessions judge, Gulbarga in Criminal Petition No. 712/86 challenging the investigation made by Chowk police in respect of Crime No. 138/82 registered for an offence under Section 506 IPC on the ground that it was non-cognizable offence and, therefore, the charge-sheet had been placed in violation of Section 155 Cr. P. C. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, by order dated 24-3-1984 found force in that contention and came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was clearly illegal. Therefore, he allowed the Revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to apply his mind to the matter and take an appropriate decision in the light of the observations made in that order. ( 4 ) IT is that order that is questioned in this Criminal Petition on the ground that the offence under Section 506 IPC is made cognizable by a government Notification dated 31-8-1979 and the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order by not noticing the said notification and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader is not in a position to state as to what the learned Magistrate has done pursuant to the impugned order in respect of which no stay is granted by this Court. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, this Criminal Petition deserves to be dismissed notwithstanding the apparent illegalities said to have been committed by the learned Sessions Judge without noticing the Notification dated 31-8-1979 under which section 506 IPC is made cognizable in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in S. Guin and Others v Grindlays Bank Ltd. , AIR 1986 SC 289 in which their Lordships have observed in paragraph-4 at page 290 as under:"4. We are of the view that following the above principle the High Court should have dismissed the appeal before it even if it disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court with regard to the gist of the offence punishable under Section 341 Indian Penal Code, having regard to the inordinate delay of nearly six years that had ensued after the judgment of acquittal, the nature and magnitude of the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellants and the difficulties that may have to be encountered in securing the presence of witnesses in a case of this nature nearly 7 years after the incident. . . . . " ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not a heinous offence as it is punishable with imprisonment for two years or fine, or both as the second part of Section 506 ipc is not applicable to this case as it is not the case of the complainant that threat was administered to him to cause death or any grievous hurt had been caused to him. The incident has taken place at about 8-30 p. m. on 17-4-1982 near a bridge. It is not the case of the complainant that any other person was present with him or near about that place at that time. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in re-opening the matter after a lapse of more than 8 years and four months. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .