Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1316 (PAT)

Ramesh Narayan Joshi v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-20

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 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. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning in order dated 19.5.2010, it was noticed that in this case, order of stay is continuing since 2.3.2000. 2. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward to press this petition. 3. However, Shri Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State is present. 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 order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint case No. 1202(C) of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Shri Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submits that in this case on the basis of materials available on record, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence. He further submits that time without number, it has been held that at initial stage of a criminal case or interlocutory stage, this Court should refrain from interfering. He submits that whatever ground has been taken in this petition on behalf of the petitioner are defence of the accused persons, which cannot be examined by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 6. I have also examined the materials available on record. I am totally in agreement with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the State and, accordingly, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, lam of the view that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of offence under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, by its order dated 7.9.1998, has committed no error. 7. I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 2.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 9. 7. I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 2.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith.