JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or even to make prayer for adjournment. 2. The petitioner, who is informant of this case, which was registered long back in the year 1983, came to this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code, against the order dated 22.8.1998 passed by Sri Ved Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur, in T.R. No. 30 of 1998/GR 1039 of 1983. By the said order the learned Magistrate had rejected the petitions filed on behalf of the informant (petitioner before this Court) for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the prayer to commit the case to the court of sessions. 3. Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State half heartedly supports the stands of the petitioner. He submits that the injury report, which was prepared by Dr. R.L. Gupta, makes it clear that some of the injuries on the person of the informant were found to be grievous and, as such, the learned Magistrate ought to had committed the case to the court of sessions. 4. I have examined the materials available on the record and also the impugned order i.e. order dated 22nd August, 1998 whereby Shri Ved Praksh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur, had dealt with the petitions filed by the complainant in detail and passed a reasoned and speaking order. The learned Magistrate, had rejected different petitions i.e. petitions dated 11.10.1985, 14.4.1988, 3.10.1991, 12.3.1992 and 23.3.1994. The petitioner had filed several petitions before the court below raising a plea that in this case Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted. 5. In this case first information report vide Samastipur P.S. Case No. 69 of 1983 was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the first information report, the occurrence had alleged to have taken place on 10.5.1983. In the first information report it was alleged that the accused persons, variously armed, assaulted the petitioner and thereafter he was sent for medical treatment. He was examined by Dr. R.L.Gupta, who in his report indicated that the petitioner had received some grievous injuries. In the case the petitioner was subsequently referred to Darbhanga Medicial College and Hospital, Laheriasarai (DMCH). In the first information report it was alleged that the accused persons, variously armed, assaulted the petitioner and thereafter he was sent for medical treatment. He was examined by Dr. R.L.Gupta, who in his report indicated that the petitioner had received some grievous injuries. In the case the petitioner was subsequently referred to Darbhanga Medicial College and Hospital, Laheriasarai (DMCH). However, the doctor at DMCH, who treated the petitioner, found all the injuries as simple in nature. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet for the offences which were alleged in the first information report and on the basis of materials available on the record the learned Magistrate by its order dated 9.9.1983 took cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, charges were also framed on 11.6.1985. The charges were under Sections 148, 324, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the trial in the case commenced and during trial, as appears from the impugned order, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. It appears from the impugned order that right from 1985 petitions were being filed on behalf of the informant (petitioner before this Court), for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, finally, after examination of five prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 22.8.1998 rejected all the petitions filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned Magistrate in its order dated 22.8.1998 in detail referred the important evidences and had rejected all such petitions filed by the petitioner. From the impugned order it is further evident that the case had come to the stage of argument. Accordingly, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error. Moreover, in the present case the date of alleged occurrence is 23.3.1983 and after lapse of such a long period there was no alternative but to reject such petitions. One cannot be compelled to face the peril of new trial after such a long period. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner only with a view to put a sword of trial hanging on the head of the accused persons had made a prayer for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the case and had prayed for commitment of the case to the court of sessions. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner only with a view to put a sword of trial hanging on the head of the accused persons had made a prayer for adding Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the case and had prayed for commitment of the case to the court of sessions. In any event he succeeded in harassing the accused persons for such a long time. After rejection of the petition by order dated 28.8.1998, the petitioner rushed to this Court. This Court by order dated 9.2.1999 while admitting this petition, had directed that during the pendency of this application operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed and till date the stay order is continuing meaning thereby that trial against the petitioner has not come to an end. Certainly, pendency of the proceeding for about 27 years amounts to abridge the right of speedy trial of the accused persons. However, I am not recording any opinion on these points since this Court, in the present case, is only required to examine the order dated 22.8.1998 whereby the petitions filed by the petitioner were rejected. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected.