JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the S.D.J.M. Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 1740 of 2006 arising out of Kotwali (S.N.) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006 whereby and where under, the learned court rejected the petition dated 15.03.2024 wherein the petitioner prayed for dropping the entire criminal proceeding under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code; in view of the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged the F.I.R. basing upon which Kotwali (SN) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1740 of 2006 was registered. Police submitted charge sheet in the said case alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 258 read with Section 198 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to drop the proceeding initiated under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M. considered that in the case, police submitted charge sheet no. 699 of 2007 on 08.06.2007 under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance order was challenged before this court by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. This Court in the said Cr.M.P. No. 1831 of 2007 vide order dated 16.07.2012 quashed cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, but did not interfere with the cognizance in respect of the offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. On 18.11.2021, charge was framed against the accused person under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is at the stage of argument and at a belated stage, the petition has been filed. On 18.11.2021, charge was framed against the accused person under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is at the stage of argument and at a belated stage, the petition has been filed. The learned S.D.J.M. considered that Section 258 Cr.P.C. vests the court with the power to stop proceedings in summons cases when there exists serious defect in the prosecution case; which goes to the root of the matter rendering further proceeding impossible or futile and since the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for seven years, the same is not a summons case and the same is warrant case, hence the power under Section 258 cannot be exercised in respect of a warrant case like the case involving the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi failed to consider the provisions of Section 198 Cr.P.C. and did not consider the judgments pressed by the petitioner. It is then submitted that the learned S.D.J.M. failed to consider the restriction for taking cognizance in respect of the of the offence punishable under section 494 of the IPC, to the effect that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Penal Code, 1860 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 1399, Para-12 of which reads as under: “12. In the case on hand, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order. That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance order at a later point of time. The impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court holding to this effect is, therefore, incontrovertible on all counts and does not warrant interference.” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted that since the petitioner has already invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by filing Cr.M.P. No. 1831 of 2007 and by that time cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was already taken by the learned S.D.J.M. but this Court did not interfere with the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and the said order of the High Court having not been challenged in any superior court, has reached finality, the same is binding upon the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi and there is no way, the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi could have overridden the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1831 of 2007 whereby and where under this Court did not interfere with the cognizance taken under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that indisputably, the offence of 494 of the Indian Penal Code is a warrant case, the maximum punishment provided for being imprisonment for seven years, so obviously Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. was not applicable to the cases involving the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned S.D.J.M. has rightly rejected the same. It is, therefore, submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that indisputably this is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier in Cr.M.P. No. 1831 of 2007, the petitioner challenged the cognizance order passed in Kotwali (SN) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1740 of 2006 but this Court did not interfere with the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order of this Court was not challenged before any superior court, so the order has reached finality. The said order of this Court was not challenged before any superior court, so the order has reached finality. Once this Court did not interfere with the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no way the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi could have accepted the plea of the petitioner that the cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law. Otherwise also, Section 258 of Cr.P.C. in so many words envisages that the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in summons cases and indisputably, the offence of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is a warrant case, therefore the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi has not committed any illegality by not stopping the proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner. This Court do not finds any illegality in the order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 1740 of 2006 arising out of Kotwali (SN) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.