Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 196 (JHR)

Hari Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
JUDGMENT 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. 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, 467, 468, 471, 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. As it appears, that an F.I.R. 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. It is alleged that Nirmal Kumar Singh s/o Late Raj Narayan Singh was convicted for committing murder of Budhev Chatterjee in S.T. No. 20 of 1980 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and thereafter his appeal was also dismissed by the High Court and his conviction and sentence was affirmed and he was ordered to be taken into custody. Thereafter, he filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, but since he did not surrender, as such, the S.L.P. was dismissed. It is further alleged that all the sons, daughters in law and other relatives of late Raj Narain Singh by hatching up a conspiracy declared the said Nirmal Kumar Singh as dead and obtained a false death certificate dated 6.8.1988 showing him to have died in a boat disaster. It is further alleged that all the sons, daughters in law and other relatives of late Raj Narain Singh by hatching up a conspiracy declared the said Nirmal Kumar Singh as dead and obtained a false death certificate dated 6.8.1988 showing him to have died in a boat disaster. Thereafter, the said Nirmal Kumar Singh, who was alive changed his name as Narendra Pratap Singh and the name of his wife was also changed as Manjula Devi and now they are moving in their changed names. It is also alleged that after hatching a conspiracy and declaring Nirmal Kumar Singh as dead, they also obtained money from the Insurance Company. According to the allegations made in the FIR, though Nirmal Kumar Singh, a convicted accused in the murder case is still alive but he after being falsely declared to be dead was moving around in a fake name as Narendra Pratap Singh. On the basis of the said allegation an F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons including the petitioner for the alleged commission of the offence as stated in the F.I.R. The police took up the investigation and initially, submitted charge sheet against Nirmal Kumar Singh @ Narendra Pratap Singh and Vijay Pratap Singh. However further investigation proceeded. Thereafter, the police submitted supplementary charge sheet against other accused persons including this petitioner.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after perusing the supplementary case diary as well as the supplementary charge sheet submitted by the police took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons including the petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 465/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was taken into custody. By filing the instant application, the petitioner has challenged the entire criminal prosecution/ proceeding pending against him on the ground that no case is made out against him and the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is illegal as the same is not based on material available on records. From the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that the allegations are very serious in nature and the police in course of investigation, collected sufficient materials and evidence against the accused persons including this petitioner and thereby submitted charge sheet against this petitioner also. From the facts narrated herein above, it is clear that the allegations are very serious in nature and the police in course of investigation, collected sufficient materials and evidence against the accused persons including this petitioner and thereby submitted charge sheet against this petitioner also. The learned Court below after perusing the original case record, the supplementary case diary and supplementary charge sheet has taken cognizance against the accused persons including this petitioner also for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 465/34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the impugned order as well as the materials in the case diary which has been called for in this case, I find that the learned, Magistrate after application of mind and on consideration of materials and evidence collected during investigation has taken cognizance and therefore, In my view, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in taking cognizance for the offence alleged against this petitioner also. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and as such this application is dismissed.