JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. . Shri Parashuram Singh files vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, who has not been arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in the present case. Keep it on record. 2. Today again, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, when the case was called out. Yesterday also, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, the case was adjourned for a day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. 3. I have heard Smt. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. I have also perused the materials on record. 4. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 26th July, 2001 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 166 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioners and others. 5. The case arises out of an F.I.R. vide Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 575 of 1998, which was registered for the offence under Sections 144, 341, 448, 323, 506 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was registered against about seven accused persons. After registering F.I.R., police investigated the same and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted on 30.9.1998. In the case, charges were subsequently framed for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 144 and 448 of the Indian Penal code on 16.8.1999 and thereafter, trial commenced. After completion of prosecution evidence, a petition was filed for amending the charge and it was prayed that Section 325/34 of I.P.C. be added, since the injuries caused on Praveen Kumar was grievous in nature. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated 23.2.2001, directed for amendment of the charge. 6. Aggrieved with the order dated 23.2.2001 whereby the learned Magistrate had directed for amending the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal code, the accused persons preferred a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 166 of 2001. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated 23.2.2001, directed for amendment of the charge. 6. Aggrieved with the order dated 23.2.2001 whereby the learned Magistrate had directed for amending the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal code, the accused persons preferred a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 166 of 2001. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that accusation of inflicting grievous injuries was only against two petitioners, so charge amended in respect of other accused persons for offence under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. was altered and charge under Section 325/34 of I.P.C. against two petitioners was approved by the learned Sessions Judge. After the order dated 26th July,2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 166 of 2001, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition and on 26.6.2002, the petition was admitted for hearing and Lower Court Record was also called for which is lying with the record of present case. 7. On perusal of the materials available on record, the court is of the view that while partly allowing the revision petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had committed no error. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has remained pending for such a long time, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Let Lower Court Record be sent to the court below forthwith along with this order. 11. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected.