JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. Yesterday, when the case was called out none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was noticed that the present petition was admitted on 7.3.2000 and, while admitting, this court had directed that pending disposal, further proceeding in Digha P. S. Case No.83 of 1998 pending in the court of Sri B. N. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. Yesterday, while adjourning the case, it was indicated that, if on the next date no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record even in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Today, again when the case was called out, none has come forward on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 4. 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 order dated 7.11.1998 passed by Sri B. N. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Digha P. S. Case No.83 of 1998. By the said order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. In this case the petitioner along with the petition has brought on record the certified copy of the impugned order i. e. dated 7.11.1998 and a typed copy of so called charge sheet. The petitioner, it appears, has purposely not brought on record a copy of the first information report. On perusal of the typed copy of so called charge sheet, it is evident that there was specific allegation against the petitioner that in presence of the informant, namely, Ram Balak Rai, his brother Mahesh Rai was murdered by several accused persons including the petitioner. The brother of the informant died due to fire arm injury as appears from page 22 of the brief. The brother of the informant died due to fire arm injury as appears from page 22 of the brief. This petitioner was not sent up to face trial on the ground that the Superintendent of Police had accepted the plea of alibi, however other accused persons were charge-sheeted. The learned Magistrate, after examining the charge sheet and the case diary, finding specific case against the petitioner took cognizance of the offence against this petitioner and other accused persons, who were sent up for trial. 6. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition and since 7.3.2000 the petitioner is enjoying the advantage of the order of interim stay. 7. On the basis of materials available on the record, I am of the view that, while taking cognizance differing with the police report, the learned Magistrate had committed no error and the order was passed in accordance with law. I do not find any merit in the present petition. 8. Keeping in view the fact that criminal proceeding in such a serious offence was kept pending before this court for more than ten years, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end. 9. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. 10. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 7.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.