HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEITHER any body appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this application nor any prayer for adjournment or adjustment of the case has been made. Accordingly, this application is being disposed of on its own merit and on the basis of averments made in the petition as well as the materials in the case diary.

(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 21. 2. 2008 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G. R. No. 1800 of 2006, whereby the cognizance for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 487, 468, 471 and 465/34 of the Indian Penal code has been taken against the petitioner and other accused persons in Dhanbad (Bank More) P. S. Case No. 393 of 2006.

(3.) AS it appears, that an FIR was lodged before Dhanbad (Bank More) Police Station on 23. 1. 2006 by one Uday Shankar Singh against eight named accused persons, alleging therein that the uncle of the informant namely Raj Narayan Singh died on 17. 6. 2004. For his cremation his younger brother Ashok Kumar Singh and other family members went to Varanasi. After return from Varanasi, his younger brother Ashok kumar Singh informed him that Nirmal kumar Singh, son of late Raj Narayan Singh was still alive and he had a talk with him. Even in the card of Daskaram which was received by the informant and in the invitation published in the Hindustan Daily newspaper dated 29. 6. 2004 at page 3, the name of Nirmal Kumar Singh who was alive was missing whereas a new name Narendra pratap Singh as his son was mentioned.