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 two orders. First is an order dated 27.11.2000 passed by Sri Panchanand Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1434 (C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the second is an order dated 1.6.2002, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 Major Y.N. Chaudhary initially filed a written complaint before the police and, as such, an F.I.R. vide Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 636 of 1999 was registered on 27.10.1999 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that while the informant/complainant was returning by his Maruti Car on Bailey Road at about 8.30 P.M. in the night, the petitioner along with other accused persons came on Ambassador Car and stopped his car in front of the Car of the informant/ complainant. Thereafter, accused persons abused the informant and snatched the purse of the informant/ complainant, in which Rs. 1500/ - was kept. After registering the F.I.R., the police investigated the same. However, on 28.2.2000 the police submitted final report (Annexure-2 to the present petition) indicating therein as a dispute of civil nature. Before filing of the final report, the informant had already filed a protest petition on 5th November, 1999. Subsequently, protest petition was treated as complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 1434 (C) of 2000. After conducting enquiry and examining witnesses, the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 27.11.2000 took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on 1.6.2002, learned Magistrate also framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After framing of the charge, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 11.9.2002, while issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court directed that in the meantime further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 6.1.2003 the petition was admitted for hearing. 3. After framing of the charge, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 11.9.2002, while issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court directed that in the meantime further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 6.1.2003 the petition was admitted for hearing. 3. Sri S.N.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has submitted that the present proceeding was initiated against the petitioner maliciously. It was submitted that the dispute in between the petitioner and the complainant was continuing since long relating to some passage. It was submitted that even the complainant had admitted in paragraph 8 of the complaint petition that proceedings under Section 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. were going and this was the reason for the occurrence. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a title suit vide Title Suit No. 78 of 1999 was also preferred by the complaint relating to the same land which has finally been rejected on 21.5.2010. It has been argued that while the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant, the complainant had not at all whispered regarding witnessing the occurrence by any witness. However, in the complaint petition, the complainant had brought two persons as pocket witnesses and they had supported the case of the complainant as per his instance. It has been submitted that even on the basis of materials available on record, no case was made out against the petitioner, however, the learned Magistrate has incorrectly taken cognizance of offences and also has framed charges without any material. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to allow the present petition. 4. Sri Md. Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. During the course of hearing, Sri Alam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner was not having clean antecedent. It was submitted that the petitioner was also an accused in a murder case. However, it has been refuted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that it is true that he was made accused in a murder case, but subsequently the police had submitted final form in favour of the petitioner. Sri Alam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. However, it has been refuted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted that it is true that he was made accused in a murder case, but subsequently the police had submitted final form in favour of the petitioner. Sri Alam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has further argued that in one petition, two reliefs were not permissible even then the petitioner has prayed for two distinct reliefs; one for quashing of order and second for quashing of the charge. It has further been submitted that on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition as well as materials brought on record during the enquiry, sufficient materials were brought on record showing commission of alleged offences and, as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly framed charge under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal code. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition. 5. Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken on behalf of the Opp. Party No. 2. 6. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the present case, once charge has already been framed against the petitioner, there is no option before this Court save and except to allow the proceeding pending before the court below to continue. In the present case, materials available on record suggest that offence was prima facie committed and, as such, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of offences. The complainant was a retired Major from the Defence Service and he had made allegation regarding commission of offences by the petitioner, which was supported by the two enquiry witnesses and thereafter finally charge has already been framed by the learned Magistrate long back on 1.6.2002. The, defence taken by the petitioner before this Court can be taken at the stage of defence during the trial. This is not the stage to examine all those materials in detail. I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. This is not the stage to examine all those materials in detail. I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the matter remained pending before this Court for a long period, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay.