Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 896 (PAT)

Bahuru Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-22

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. No one appears either on behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. The present case was admitted on 8.9.1999 and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in C. R. Case no.389 of 1998 pending in the court of the judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhanjharpur, shall remain stayed. It appears that after obtaining the order of stay, the petitioners have lost their interest in the present case. Due to that reason, none has come forward either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 3. Two petitioners,while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, have prayed for quashing of order dated 9.3.1999 passed by the judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhanjharpur in c. R. Case No.389 of 1998 and also the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 10.5.1999 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, madhubani in Cr. Revision No.149 of 1999. By the order dated 10.5.1999, the learned Sessions Judge, madhubani had rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 9.3.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 4. On perusal of order dated 9.3.1999, it is evident that petitioners, against whom processes were issued in C. R. Case No.389 of 1999, had filed a petition for recalling the processes issued under Sec.204 of the Code of Criminal procedure on 16/11/1998 against them. The prayer of petitioners was rejected by the learned magistrate. While rejecting the prayer for recall, the learned Magistrate has recorded in its order dated 9/3/1999 that on perusal of the record, it was found that sufficient materials were there and only thereafter, summons were issued to the accused persons to face trial for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 504 and 341 of the Indian penal Code. Against rejection of their petition for recall of the process, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court, madhubani by filing Cr. Revision No.149 of 1999. However, the revision application too stood rejected by an order dated 10/5/1999. On perusal of the materials available on record and after examining both the orders, I am of the view that neither the learned Magistrate has committed any error, while rejecting the recall petition nor learned Sessions Judge has committed any mistake, while rejecting the revision petition of the petitioners. On perusal of the materials available on record and after examining both the orders, I am of the view that neither the learned Magistrate has committed any error, while rejecting the recall petition nor learned Sessions Judge has committed any mistake, while rejecting the revision petition of the petitioners. Moreover,in the garb of second revision, the petitioners cannot be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 8/9/1999 stands automatically vacated.