JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order dated 06.02.2017 arising out of Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case no.970/2014, corresponding to G.R. No.4496/2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The FIR has been lodged on a written report dated 01.10.2014 by the informant namely Arvind Kumar Barnwal, wherein, it has been alleged that he is the holder of one saving account in Dhanbad Branch of Central Bank of India bearing S.B. A/c No.3113402384 and he had made application for issuance of cheque book in his favour and in that connection he received a message on 22.05.2014 that cheque book has been issued in his favour by speed post and he went to the bank to receive the cheque book but it was informed that cheque book had not yet come. It has been further alleged that on 26.09.2014, the informant went to bank to get his passbook updated, but then after getting the same updated, he found that his balance in the said account was Rs.1969/-and a total amount of Rs.4,35,000/-(Rs. Four Lakh Thirty Five Thousand) had been illegally withdrawn from his said account by the use of following cheques: (i) Cheque dated 26.06.2014 vide cheque no.016234, a sum of Rs.50,000/-. (ii) Cheque dated 26.06.2014 vide cheque no.016237, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. (iii) Cheque dated 27.06.2014 vide cheque no.016240, a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Thus, total Rs.4,35,000/-had been fraudulently withdrawn without his knowledge and consent. It has been also alleged that he met Branch Manager Sri B.N. Singh and made complaint but Branch Manager told him that all the withdrawal had been made by his cheques duly signed by him, to which the informant disclosed that till date he had not received cheque book thus all withdrawals were fraudulently done. It has been further alleged that the said Branch Manager from his bank record, took out the cheque no.016237 and showed the same to the informant and told that the cheque belongs to him and the same contained his signature. But then on perusal of the same the informant found that all the signatures appearing on the cheque were forged. It has been further alleged that the said Branch Manager from his bank record, took out the cheque no.016237 and showed the same to the informant and told that the cheque belongs to him and the same contained his signature. But then on perusal of the same the informant found that all the signatures appearing on the cheque were forged. It has been also alleged that in respect of two other withdrawal cheques, the Branch Manager disclosed that the said two cheques amounting to Rs.50,000/-and Rs.35,000/-have been withdrawn from Central Bank, Jharia Branch and Central Bank, Bank More Branch respectively and, hence, on such allegation a case against unknown was registered. 4. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without any materials, all the petitioners have been implicated in the case. The FIR was registered against unknown and charge-sheet has been submitted. He submits that the cognizance order is also bad in law. He further submits that the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India has written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad by way of Annexure-3 of the petition stating therein that bank officials may not be harassed and they are cooperating in the investigation. 5. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that what are the materials in the charge-sheet, is not before the Court. The charge-sheet has been submitted and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance. She further submits that at this stage, the Court may not interfere. 6. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that there are allegations of withdrawal of amount from different cheques of the informant and it has been stated that in the cheques, the signatures were forged. The police has investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet and pursuant thereto the learned court has taken cognizance. In a case where charge-sheet has been submitted, the court is only required to carefully examine the material on the record and come to the conclusion and take cognizance. In cases instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. In a case where charge-sheet has been submitted, the court is only required to carefully examine the material on the record and come to the conclusion and take cognizance. In cases instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order is based upon subject to satisfaction of the learned Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the learned Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the learned Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking on file. In the case in hand, the cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge-sheet filed by the police. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.