JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. In this case, yesterday i.e. on 8.4.2010, on repeated call, none appeared. However, it was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was recorded in order dated 8.4.2010. The present case was admitted on 19.7.1999. While admitting the case this Court had directed that until further order, proceedings in the Court below shall remain stayed. The order is still continuing. It is made clear that if tomorrow no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on the record." 2. Today, when the case was called out, none has appeared either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. It appears that in view of order of stay, the petitioners have lost their interest in the present case. 3. The petitioners, while making a prayer for quashing of the entire prosecution in complaint case No. 680(C) of 1996, had also prayed for quashing of order of cognizance dated 25.7.1996 passed by Shri B.K. Tiwari. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. By order dated 25.7.1996, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 504, 505, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been stated in paragraph-1 of the petition that by order dated 25.7.1996, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 504, 505, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On perusal of the entire petition as well as examining the main file, I am not be able to lay my hand to the order dated 25.7.1996. Along with the petition, a compromise petition has been enclosed and only on the basis of such petition, it appears that the petitioners have prayed for quashing of entire proceeding including order dated 25.7.1996. In absence of impugned order along with the main petition, I do not think it proper to interfere into the matter. Moreover, as per pleading of the petition, it appears that only after order of cognizance, the petitioners had approached this Court. 6. At this initial stage of a criminal case, it is not advisable for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. 6. At this initial stage of a criminal case, it is not advisable for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court below forthwith.