Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J .

1. Heard Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Ms. Ritika Rani, learned counsel for the applicant in Interlocutory Application No. 9 of 2019.

2. Though the present case was being taken up with Cr. Misc. No. 14435 of 2009 in view of the order dated 17.05.2010 [Coram: Sheema Ali Khan, J.] in Cr. Misc. No. 33116 of 2009, however, this Bench, vide separate orders dated 14.12.2018 in Cr. Misc. Nos. 33116 of 2009 and 14435 of 2009, de-linked the cases as the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 14435 of 2009 sought time/adjournment, whereas Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel having come from outside the state was heard in the present case, as has been recorded in the order of even date. However, on that day, time was sought in Cr. Misc. No. 14435 of 2009 on the ground of illness of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner therein. Thus, separately, the next date fixed in both the cases was 17.01.2019. On that day, Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel was heard at length in the present case and as arguments could not be concluded, the matter was fixed for 31.01.2019, but on prayer made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 14435 of 2009, the next date in the said case was fixed for 07.02.2019. Accordingly, in the present case, on 31.01.2019, arguments were concluded by learned counsel for the parties and judgment reserved. Thus, the de-linking is solely attributable to the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 14435 of 2009.

3. Be that as it may, a decision to link/tag two or more matters, more so when both are pending consideration by the same Bench, vests in the absolute discretion of the Court concerned. No party has a right to get matters tagged and heard together. Any such de-linking/linking is for the Court's convenience, not the parties'. The aforesaid sequence of events have been recorded, not as a explanation of any sort, of which there exists no need, rather only to set the record straight, since Judges do not enjoy the luxury of ventilating their point of view, and judgments are their only weapon.

4. The petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking the following relief:

"This is an application on behalf of above named petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding in Complaint Case 41(C) of 2009 arising out of Pandarakh P.S. Case No. 131/91 including order dated 31.08.2009 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh. The petitioner further prays to declare that entire proceeding in Complaint Case no. 41(C) of 2009 is non-est and void in the eye of law."

5. During the by-election for the Barh Parliamentary Constituency held on 16.11.1991, an incident of firing occurred at Booth No. 163 in Middle School Dhibar. The petitioner was the candidate of the Janta Dal party. With regard to the incident, one Raja Ram Singh gave fardbeyan alleging that at 3.00 PM, when he and his brother had gone to the booth to cast their votes, the petitioner along with Dilip Singh, Member of the Legislative Assembly from Mokama, Dular Chand Yadav, Yogendra Yadav, Baudhu Yadav, Shiv Narayan Yadav and other miscreants armed with gun, rifle and pistol came and all of a sudden, the petitioner fired at his brother with the intention to kill which hit his brother who died at the spot. It was further alleged that the informant along with Ashok Singh and four other people, namely, Suresh Singh, Mauli Singh, Mannu Singh and Rambabu, were injured. Based on the said written statement, Pandarak PS Case No. 131 of 1991 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to