JUDGMENT : Even after repeated calls, nobody appeared to represent the case of petitioner. From perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that even on earlier occasion i.e. on 29.8.2016, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner 2. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Katras (Tetulmari) PS Case No.96 of 1997(G.R. No. 928 of 1997), including the order dated 1.11.1999 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the informant Suresh Ram lodged an FIR being Katras (Tetulmari) PS Case No. 96 of 1997, stating therein that his son namely Shambhu Kumar, who has been residing and studying at Gaya, has came in his house Nichitpur on 1.4.1997. It is further stated that on 3.4.1997 his son along with one Pramod Kumar Paul, who was the resident of Inda Bigha Police Station, Aurangabad came to meet with his son and stayed at night in his house. It is further stated that on 4.4.1997 friend of his son, namely, Pramod Kumar Paul took his Scooter bearing registration no. BR-17A-5362, Chassis no. 06990, Engine No. 070391 on the pretext that he has to go at Muli and he would return within a short span of time but he did not return. It has been further alleged that when the said accused person did not return back then he inquired the matter from the villagers and learnt that earlier also the said named accused succeeded to take one Vespa Scooter in the same way, which belongs to one Munna Rabidas. 4. Mr.Amaresh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while supporting the prosecution case has submitted that the order taking cognizance is perfectly legal, inasmuch as after having found prima facie case against the petitioner, the learned court below took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and there is no illegality or infirmity in it, warranting interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the lower court record as well as the order impugned in the present case. 6. In the case of Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, reported in 1990 Suppl. SCC 686, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-3 thereof held as under :- “3. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the lower court record as well as the order impugned in the present case. 6. In the case of Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, reported in 1990 Suppl. SCC 686, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-3 thereof held as under :- “3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court”. 7. This Court after examining the facts of the present case and keeping in view the touchstone established in the case of Dhanalakshmi (supra), is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance dated 1.11.1999. 8. However, this Court directs the petitioner to surrender before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on or before 30th November, 2016 in connection with Katras (Tetulmari) PS Case No. 96 of 1997(G.R. No. 928 of 1997) and file his bail application. In the event he files his bail application, the trial court shall admit him on bail on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and on a further condition that he will co-operate with the trial. In the event he files his bail application, the trial court shall admit him on bail on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and on a further condition that he will co-operate with the trial. In the event, the petitioner does not surrender on or before 30th November, 2016, it would be open to the trial court to issue warrant of arrest. 9. Since the present case is of the year 1997, this Court directs the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. 11. Registry of this Court is directed to communicate the order to the concerned trial court immediately and send back the lower court record forthwith.