AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar, J.—Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.5.1999 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners in G.R. No. 176 of 1996.
Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party no. 2 had earlier filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 37 of 1996 alleging therein that the petitioners had committed fraud against the complainant. The said complaint petition was forwarded to the police for its registration tinder Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was lodged for offences under Sections 420, 504, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After investigating the case, police submitted charge-sheet. In the case, after submission of the charge-sheet cognizance order was passed. At the stage of charge, the petitioners filed a petition for their discharge and by the impugned order, i.e. order dated 15.5.1999 the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition.
I have perused the impugned order. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition, has discussed the argument of both the parties and by way of assigning a detailed reason, has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners.
While passing the impugned order, I am of the opinion, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected.
On 14.2.2000 the present petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed.
In view of the rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.