IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1644 of 2009 Hari Narayan Thakur S/O Late Baijnath Thakur Vill.- Kamalpur, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mahesh Narain Kanth S/O Late Anant Bihari Kanth Vill.- Kamalpur Jhakhri Tol, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani 3. Shekhar Kanth S/O Mahsh Narain Kanth Vill.- Kamalpur Jhakhri Tol, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani 4. Keshav Narain Kanth S/O Late Anad Bihari Kanth Vill.- Kamalpur Jhakhri Tol, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani 5. Putur Rai S/O Late Babulal Rai Vill.- Kamalpur Jhakhri Tol, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani 6. Vikkai Kamat S/O Late Annu Kamat Vill.- Kamalpur Jhakhri Tol, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani 7. Sondai Devi W/O Vikkai Kamat Vill.- Kamalpur Jhakhri Tol, P.S.- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani ………..Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 24.11.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 10.08.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Cr. Rev. No.89/2009 by which he has been please to set aside the order dated 3.12.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 in G.R.No.1156/2008 arising out of Pandaul P.S. Case No.107/2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2 From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the case diary and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In Pandaul P.S. Case No.107/08, police has submitted final form against the accused as false, but the learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance under Sections 323 and 436 of the I.P.C. on the ground that there is a material in paragraph nos. 9 & 10 of the case diary, which supported the prosecution case and the learned C.J.M. has mentioned in his order that in paragraph 3 of the case diary, the re-statement of the informant is mentioned and in paragraph 6 of the case diary, the injury report is copied out and in paragraph 8, there is description of P.O. and in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the case diary, the proposed witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but on perusal of the case diary, the learned Sessions Judge has found that in paragraph 3 of the case diary has been supported the prosecution case and in paragraph 6 of the case diary, there is mention of injury report of the informant as simple in nature. In paragraph 8 of the case diary, there is description of P.O. and in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the case diary, the proposed witnesses have not 3 supported the prosecution case, rather, in paragraph 9 of the case diary, Pramila Devi has stated that she did not see any body litting the fire in the house of the informant and in the said occurrence, the named accused persons were not involved. Similarly in Para 10 of the case diary, the proposed witness Janak Thakur has stated that he did not see any body litting the fire in the house of the informant and he has also declined about the involvement of the accused persons and in view of this fact, the cognizance order has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)