JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Sri Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 is present. 2. The petitioner, by way of invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 771C of 1997. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 427, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of cognizance was passed on 28.1.1998 and the petitioner has filed the present petition in the month of October, 1998. By the order dated 28.1.1999, while the case was admitted for final hearing, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application further proceeding in the court below in Complaint Case No. 771C of 1997 shall remain stayed and, as such, the stay order is continuing till date. 3. Sri Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the perusal of the complaint petition itself makes it clear that the petitioner had committed offences under Sections 323, 427, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that for some official works, when the complainant had visited the house of petitioner, the complainant was assaulted and abused by the petitioner and, as such, the complainant filed the complaint petition. He was examined on solemn affirmation and thereafter two witnesses were examined in support of the complainant. While referring the impugned order, Sri Pandey submits that the learned Magistrate had examined the entire materials which were available on record and after being fully satisfied that prima facie offence under Sections 323, 427, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, the learned court below had taken cognizance of offences. Sri Pandey submits that there is no illegality or error in the order and, accordingly, he submits that the petition is fit to be rejected. 4. I have also examined the complaint petition as well as the impugned order. I am also of the view that there is no error in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. 4. I have also examined the complaint petition as well as the impugned order. I am also of the view that there is no error in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 771-C of 1997 stands automatically vacated. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.