IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32286 of 2009 MANOJ RAI @ MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF SRI SHIVNATH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALHANPURA, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT PATNA.---- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 22.12.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet was firstly submitted vide annexure-2 where it has been shown that the investigation remained pending against the petitioner. Similarly a second charge sheet was submitted on 20.4.2007 showing that the petitioner’s involvement is still under investigation. The third charge sheet was submitted in which the petitioner was not sent for trial. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of taking cognizance differing with the findings of the Investigating Officer is unwarranted. In my opinion, the Court below has the power to differ with the findings in the charge sheet after recording his opinion. In the present case the Court has relied on certain paragraphs of the case diary and taken cognizance against the petitioner. Considering this aspect of the matter, this application is dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, j.)