In the High Court of Judicature at Patna Cr. Misc. No. 20771 of 2007 Manoj Kumar Mahto Versus The State of Bihar &Anr. ------------ 5 14.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The order taking cognizance dated 26.9.2006 passed in T.R. No. 2432 which arises out of Tajpur P.S. Case no. 241 of 2005 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur is under challenge in this application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is evidence to show that the fault was on the part of the driver of the jeep and the tractor was stranded on the left side of the road and there is no element or conduct on his part for which he should be prosecuted in the criminal case. Certain evidence has been brought on record in this regard. The Court can only observe that the court taking cognizance does not have to record in detail all the aspects of the evidence or materials while taking cognizance of the offence. These are the matter which can be urged or raised at the time of framing of charge. The application for quashing the order of cognizance is hereby rejected. But liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all such factual or legal aspect which may be available to him at the time of framing of charge. This application is dismissed with the above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)