IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24436 of 2007 1. GOPALJEE PRASAD son of Sita Ram Prasad. 2. Sheo Shankar Prasad 3. Gauri Shankar Prasad 4. Rajesh Kumar All sons of Gopaljee Prasad. 5. Lallan Prasad son of Bhagwati Sharan Prasad All resident of village Hardipatti, Police Station- Nautan, District West Champaran. … Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajeev Ranjan Verma son of Umesh Kumar Verma resident of Ghiorahi Mathia Police Station Jagdishpur (Nautan), District- West Champaran. .. Opp. Parties. ----------- 6. 04.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for opposite party no. 2. The order taking cognizance has been sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that initially when the FIR was filed, the police did not find the case to be true but the learned Magistrate differing form the final report has taken cognizance by basing his review of the case-diary specially its paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which according to the counsel for the petitioner does not bear any material to connect the petitioners for the offence alleged against them. Impressed with the aforesaid submissions, this court had also called for the case-diary but from paragraph 2 5 and 6 it is absolutely clear that at least two witnesses have fully supported the version of the informant and thus it cannot be said there was no material before the learned magistrate to differ with the police report. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the counter-case and defence version of the petitioner. Such materials however cannot be considered either for quashing of the order taking cognizance or for the purpose of holding the prosecution of the petitioner to be bad. That being so, this application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)