RABINDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On call neither any one appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 and 3 either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present.

(2.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mainly with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.9.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari in Rajepur P.S. Case No.57 of 2002 . By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 379, 406, 409, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have perused the materials available on record including the impugned order. On perusal of the order of cognizance , the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of offences , has examined the materials available in the case diary and by assigning a detailed reason has taken cognizance of offences. At the stage of hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that too against the order of cognizance, it is not required to examine the materials meticulously. On the basis of order of cognizance, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in his favour.