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 the order dated 24.4.1999 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Revision no.269 of 1997/2 of 1999. By the said order the 5th Additional sessions Judge, Siwan has set aside the order dated 8.8.1997 passed by Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj in Trial no.488 of 1997. The Sub. Divisional Magistrate by the order dated 8.8.1997 had recalled the earlier order dated 5.12.1995 whereby he had dropped the proceeding initiated under section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr. UDIT Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the revisional order, submits that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that the learned Sub. Divisional Magistrate was not having any power to recall its earlier order. He further submits that by order dated 8.8.1997 the learned Sub. Divisional Magistrate had only cured the technical defect which had occurred on 5.12.1995. He submits that by order dated 5.12.1995 the Sub. Divisional magistrate had dropped the proceeding which was initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since no one was appearing by either side and, as such, on the petition filed by the petitioner the learned Magistrate, while imposing cost of Rs.50/-on the petitioner, had revived the earlier order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the learned Magistrate had committed no error the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction while setting aside the order dated 8.8.1997. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.4.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision no.269 of 1997/2 of 1999. 3. Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, learned Add. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that under the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned sub. Divisional Magistrate was not having any authority to review or recall its earlier order. Moreover, once a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dropped long back in the year 1995, there was no occasion for the learned magistrate to revive the same on the prayer of the petitioner made in the year 1997 i. e. after lapse of more than two years. Moreover, once a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dropped long back in the year 1995, there was no occasion for the learned magistrate to revive the same on the prayer of the petitioner made in the year 1997 i. e. after lapse of more than two years. He further submits that the order of revival of the proceeding by the learned magistrate which was passed on 8.8.1997 was already set aside by the learned Additional Sessions-V, Siwan on 24.4.1999 and after lapse of more than twelve years it would not be advisable to direct for again initiating a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of criminal Procedure. 4. Besides hearing the parties, I have also examined the impugned order. I am of the view that while setting the order dated 8.8.1997 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Siwan has committed no error and moreover after a lapse of a long period it is not advisable to re-open the said proceeding. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected.