JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. On 14.5.2010 when the case was called out, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, as a last indulgence the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was indicated that in this case, interim order of stay is continuing since long. It was further made clear that if on the next date no one appears on behalf of the petitioners, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record even in absence of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward to press this petition. 3. In view of order dated 14.5.2010, I have heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. I have also examined the materials available on the record. 4. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.8.1999 passed by Sri R. S. Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in G. R. No.347/99 , arising out of Jadia P. S. Case No.25 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sec.364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In the case, on the basis of written report submitted by Opp. Party no.2, an F. I. R. vide Jadia P. S. Case No.25 of 1999 for the offence under Sec.364/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In the First Information Report, it was specifically asserted that the petitioners, particularly petitioner no.2, Kulanand Kumar Yadav along with other miscreants came to the house of the informant with deadly weapon and thereafter forcibly kidnapped the brother of the informant. After registering the F. I. R. , the police investigated the case. After collecting sufficient materials police submitted chargesheet for the offence under Sec.364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec.364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On perusal of the impugned order of cognizance, I do not find any error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. 6. On perusal of the impugned order of cognizance, I do not find any error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay dated 1.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.