IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.13925 OF 2007 1. PANKAJ JHA, SON OF KRIPAL JHA 2. PJOOL JHA, SON OF SIYARAM JHA 3. SHANKAR JHA, SON OF KRIPAL JHA 4. ARUN KUMAR JHA, SON OF PHOOL JHA 5. DEVO JHA, SON OF LAKSHMI JHA 6. MOHIT JHA, SON OF LAKSHMI JHA 7. PAPPU JHA, SON OF TRIVENI JHA ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARINAGAR, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PITAMBER JHA, SON OF LATE MURLIDHAR JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARI NAGAR, POLICE STATION KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 5 23/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2002 on the ground that the petitioners were not named in the First Information Report and the names have only transpired in the case diary which has been included due to village politics and enmity between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has attempted to show to this Court that the evidence is insufficient and has been given at a belated stage and as such the order taking cognizance is bad. All these aspects of the matter can only be examined at the appropriate stage of the case. At the 2 stage of taking cognizance, it is not the duty of the Court to interpret the merit of the evidence that has come during investigation. Considering the facts aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2002 passed in Kusheshwar Asthan Police Station Case No. 51 of 2002 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul (Benipur) and the order dated 18.01.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 609 of 2002. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)