JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 9th May,2001 passed by Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Cr. Revision No. 95 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order datd 25.8.1999 passed by Shri M.M. Siddiqui, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No. C.A.1220 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Shri Praween Kumar Jaypuriyar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that order of rejection of complaint petition was palpably incorrect in view of the fact that after filing of the complaint petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had conducted an enquiry and after taking cognizance, he had transferred the case to the court of Shri M.M. Siddiqui, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its enquiry and disposal. It was submitted that once, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, there was no point to refuse issuance of process by transferee court. Moreover, in this case, as per Shri Jaypuriyar, the witnesses were examined by the Chief Judicial Magistrate himself. Learned Counsel has referred a case law on that point reported in 1982 BLJ 658 (D.B) (Jitan Tiwary v. The State of Bihar). It was submitted that in similar manner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. 3. Without going into the merit of the case as well as examining the defect in the impugned order, this Court is not persuaded to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that matter is stale one. In this case, complaint petition was filed in the year 1999 for an allegation that on 9.10.1998, occurrence had taken place. It was alleged that accused persons had committed offence under Sections 468, 420, 423 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In view of the fact that matter remained pending for such a long time, it would not be advisable for this Court to interfere with the impugned order and as such the petition stand rejected.