JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This revision by the accused person arises out of the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance, of offences under Sections 436/380/324/34. I.P.C. alleged to have been committed by the Petitioners. . 2. Opposite party No. 1 lodged First Information Report in Kakatpur Police-Station naming the Petitioners to have set fire to the house of opposite party No. 1 on 14-7-1986 and having committed the other offences. This was registered as G. R. Case No. 412 of 1986. After investigation not being satisfied with the truth of the allegations against the Petitioners the Investigating Officer submitted final form to that effect. Not being satisfied opposite party No. 1 filed written complaint on 29-9-1986 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Nimapara. The learned Magistrate directed the opposite party No. 1 to produce all his witnesses as the allegations include an offence u/s 436, I.P.C. triable by the Court of Sessions. This was purported to be an enquiry u/s 202, Criminal Procedure Code In the enquiry he examined all the witnesses named in the complaint petition on different dates and recorded the initial statement of the complainant on 24. 1-1986. On perusal of those statements, he recorded the prima facie findings and took cognizance of the offences. Processes were directed to be issued against the Petitioner for appearance. On 25th March, 1987, Petitioners appeared through advocate and prayed for adjournment to move this Court on the question of maintainability of die case. As the accused persons did not appear personally, the learned Magistrate directed issue of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest fixing 24th April. 1987 for production of the Petitioners. On the direction of this Court further proceeding has been stayed and the Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest have been recalled. 3. On facts, Mr. Panda, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer are inconsistent with the statements recorded in the enquiry u/s 202, Criminal Procedure Code. This submission of Mr. Panda is within the domain of appreciation of evidence which is to be taken into consideration in trial and not for taking cognizance. Whether there are sufficient materials to hold a person guilty of the offence is not the consideration at the stage of consideration of taking cognizance to proceed against hi. See M.S. Jaggi Vs. This submission of Mr. Panda is within the domain of appreciation of evidence which is to be taken into consideration in trial and not for taking cognizance. Whether there are sufficient materials to hold a person guilty of the offence is not the consideration at the stage of consideration of taking cognizance to proceed against hi. See M.S. Jaggi Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa and Another Satruthana Dalabehera and Ors. v. State 56 (1983) C.L.T. 405 and Dr. Radhanath Rath and four others v. Balakrishna Swain 59 (1985) C.L.T. 226. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements which were not on oath whereas the statements before the learned Magistrate were on oath. In case, the learned Magistrate accepted statement on oath to take cognizance, absence of consideration of the statements u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure would not lead to interference with the order of taking cognizance in revision specially when the Petitioners are not prejudiced. At the time of the trial this question can be urged by them by bringing such statements to record. While considering a final order passed in a Criminal proceeding, An interlocutory stage, Courts shall be slow to interfere unless it causes injury to the Petitioner beyond repair. The inherent power of this Court u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code should not be exercised as a matter of course but only in rare cases where grave injustice would be caused if no interference is made. Facing a trial for an offence is pot such injustice or prejudice to be avoided either by invoking the revisional power or the inherent power of this Court. See Nrusingha Charan Panda and 2 others v. State of Orissa and Anr. 59 (1985) C.L.T. 70. The exercise of the power thus, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 4. Mr. Panda submitted that the language of Section 200, Cr, P. C. leaves no option to the learned Magistrate not to examine the witnesses present since the phrase 'shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, "is of mandatory character. He relied upon a decision of Calcutta High Court reported in Mac Culloach v, The State and Anr. 1974 Cri. L. J. 1982, in support of his contention. With respect. I am not able to accept the ratio decidendi of the said decision. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another. He relied upon a decision of Calcutta High Court reported in Mac Culloach v, The State and Anr. 1974 Cri. L. J. 1982, in support of his contention. With respect. I am not able to accept the ratio decidendi of the said decision. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another. the object of the examination of witnesses has been laid down as follows ; ....the object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint and to issue process on a complaint which is either vexatious or intended only to harass such a person..... Whether all the witnesses named in the complaint has been examined, the omission to examine some witnesses named in the list of witnesses would not lead to the conclusion that the object of examination is frustrated. At this stage of considering the question of process, question of adverse inference for non examination of a witness would not arise. The same principle of Section 134 of the Evidence Act that number does not count, the matter is important and applicable. The word 'shall' in a procedural matter is not mandatory. If the complainant does not examine some of the witnesses present but examine those named in the complaint, the issue of process is not vitiated to be interfered with in the revision. Procedural irregularities not going to the root of the matter should not be taken very seriously although the same should in all circumstances be endeavoured to be adhered to. See Bhagwan Swaroop and Others Vs. Mool Chand and Others, . 5. Mr. Panda submitted that cognizance is to be taken in respect of an offence and not an offender and once the final form was accepted, cognizance being taken, there is no scope for further cognizance on the complaint. He relied upon the decision reported in Jamuna Singh and Others Vs. Bhadai Sah, and Jiban Krishna Samanta v. The State ILR (1950) Cal. 66. Both the decisions are in a different context and are distinguishable. In the Calcutta decision, it has been held that even if the- Magistrate disposed of the case of the Police report u/s 173, Criminal Procedure Code at a later stage, it can issue process on perusal of the police diary. 66. Both the decisions are in a different context and are distinguishable. In the Calcutta decision, it has been held that even if the- Magistrate disposed of the case of the Police report u/s 173, Criminal Procedure Code at a later stage, it can issue process on perusal of the police diary. Section 173 (2) Criminal Procedure Code provides that the officer is to intimate the person giving the first formation the result of the investigation in the manner prescribed. Orissa Police Manual Form No. 33 A provides the manner. In which information is to be given which has provided that the information can be objected to before the Magistrate. The practice in Orissa is to protest against the final form which is treated as a complaint. Thus, the procedure followed for issue of process is not inconsistent with any law. Nor is it an abuse of the proces of the Court to be interfered with. Taking any view of the matter, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference. In the result, the revision application is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed