AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar, J.—Office note dated 5.11.2004 indicates that the present petition was to be heard along with Cr. Misc. No. 20577 of 2001. However, the case, i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 20577 of 2001 is not listed before this Bench. Accordingly, the present petition is being disposed of separately.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.9.1998, whereby Sri S.C. Pandey, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code in Saharsa P.S. Case No. 253 of 1998, G.R. No. 829 of 1998. It appears that immediately after order of cognizance the petitioner rushed to this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the order dated 8.12.1998, the petition was admitted and during the pendency of this application, this Court had directed that further proceeding in Saharsa P.S. Case No. 253 of 1998, G.R. No. 829 of 1998 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa shall remain stayed. Since 8.12.1998 the stay order is continuing.
It appears that after getting the order of stay, the petitioner has lost his interest in the present proceeding and, as such, none has come forward either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 appears and he has opposed the petition.
The short facts of the case is that on an allegation of committing theft of Shisham tree from the land of the informant/opp.Party No. 2, an F.I.R. vide Saharsa P.S. Case No. 253 of 1998 was registered for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In the F.I.R., the petitioner was named as accused along with six unknown persons. From the petition, it appears that during the investigation the stolen Shisham logs were recovered from the possession (Bari) of the petitioner and subsequently chargesheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. From the order taking cognizance, it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after being fully satisfied with the materials available on the record had passed a detailed order of cognizance on 25.9.1998. There appears no error in the impugned order.
Accordingly I do not find any merit in the petition and petition stands rejected.
In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order dated 8.12.1998 stands automatically vacated.
Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.