JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. On 15.4.2010, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned for a day. It was noticed by this Court that the present case was admitted on 23.7.1999 and while admitting the case further proceeding in the trial court was ordered to remain stayed. Again on 20.4.2010, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, again the case was adjourned for a day. On both the dates, Mr. Mukesh Kumar thakur, learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 was present. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward to support the petitioners case. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay in the criminal proceeding, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present case and due to that reason, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. While invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 3.2.1997 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna as well as for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in complaint Case No.172 (M) of 1997. By order dated 3.2.1997, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, patna had taken cognizance for the offences under sections 120b, 406, 408, 420/34 of the Indian penal Code and after taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate had ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest for securing attendance of accused persons. Though, order of cognizance was passed in the month of February, 1997, it appears from the record that petitioner did not take any step in the matter for quite some time and in the month of June,1999, he approached this Court by filing the present petition. However, by order dated 23.7.1999, the case was admitted and order of stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. The complainant in the present case is the Bihar state Financial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as B. S. F. C.), Patna. However, by order dated 23.7.1999, the case was admitted and order of stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. The complainant in the present case is the Bihar state Financial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as B. S. F. C.), Patna. The allegation as per the complaint petition was that the petitioner being Managing Director of a firm, namely, M/s Melmo Plast Pvt. Ltd. had approached the B. S. F. C. for sanctioning loan and a huge amount of loan to the tune of Rs.23.08 Lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioners firm. Instead of re-paying the loan, the petitioners firm fraudulently removed entire articles/equipments from the premises in question though the same was hypotheticted with the B. S. F. C. and as such by committing fraud, the petitioner and other accused persons had put B. S. F. C. to a heavy loss. In the case, by order dated 3.2.1997, the learned judicial Magistrate, Ist Class took cognizance for the offences as mentioned above. 3. I have examined the complaint petition as well as order of cognizance. The complaint petition itself discloses commission of offences by the accused persons including the petitioner and as such while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error. The order of cognizance is in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 5. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay dated 23.7.1999 stands automatically vacated. Keeping in view the fact that public money was mis-appropriated by the accused persons, it is desirable to direct the court below to expedite the proceeding in Complaint Case No.172 (M) of 1997. 6. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.