ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The High Court of Patna at Ranchi refused to accept the prayer made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') for quashing the prosecution relating to Jorapokhar PS Case No.242 of 1985 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The prayer was in respect of a complaint case which was lodged alleging commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the Indian Penal Code"). A similar application filed before the High Court was not entertained and the appellant was directed to move the learned Magistrate with whatever grievance he had. The Magistrate found that there was no case made out for dropping the proceedings. The same was challenged before the Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.2327 of 1987. The same was rejected by a learned Single Judge. A fresh petition with almost identical grievance was filed which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that certain observations made by the High Court while refusing to entertain the application should be taken note of, and they are sufficient to nullify the proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment. 4. We notice that on the self-some challenges the appellant had moved the High Court and by order dated 25.8.1987 in Criminal Misc. No.2327 of 1987 the petition was dismissed. Within a few days of the dismissal, on the self-some grounds the Criminal Misc. No.3024 of 1987 to which the present dispute relates was filed. The High Court noted that there were earlier two petitions for quashing the prosecution which were already rejected. In our view, the High Court should have thrown out the petition only on that ground and there was no necessity to make any observations about the respective stands. Looked at from any angle, there seems no justification for entertaining this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, as was directed by the High Court by the impugned judgment since the occurrence is of the year of 1985, let the trial be expedited and be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.