Jharkhand High Court
M/S Alok Fuels Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1025 of 2011
1. M/s Alok Fuels Pvt. Ltd. (previously known as Gwalior
Smokeless Fuels Pvt. Ltd.) having its registered office at 605,
Erose Apartment, 56 Nehru Place, P.O. and P.S. Nehru Place,
New Delhi through its authorized representative Ahammed
Rawther K.I. Son of Shri P M Ibrahim Rawther Resident of B 7
48F Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi
2. Alok Sharma, son of late P. Sharma, Director, M/s Alok Fuels (P)
Ltd. (previously known as Gwalior Smokeless Fuels Pvt. Ltd.)
Resident of 605, Erose Apartment, 56 Nehru Place, P.O. & P.S.
Nehru Place, New Delhi ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Coal Area, Bokaro
3. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
4. The Officer in Charge, Baghmara (Barora) Police Station Dhanbad
... ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. M.P. No. 1026 of 2011
1. M/s Faridabad Industries (Unit of M/s Alok Fuels Pvt. Ltd.)
having its unit situated at P.O. & Vill. Atta, Tehsil Nuh (Sohna), Dist.
Mewat (Haryana) and registered office at 605, Erose Apartment, 56,
Nehru Place, P.O. and P.S. Nehru Place, New Delhi through its
authorized representative Ahammed Rawther K.I. Son of Shri P M
Ibrahim Rawther Resident of B 7 48F Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi, P.O. &
P.S. Mayur Vihar-III, Delhi
2. Alok Sharma, son of late P. Sharma, Director, M/s Faridabad
Industries (Unit of M/s Alok Fuels (P) Ltd. Resident of 605, Erose
Apartment, 56 Nehru Place, P.O. and P.S. Nehru Place, New Delhi
... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Coal Area, Bokaro
3.The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
4. The Officer in Charge, Baghmara (Barora) Police Station Dhanbad
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
(In both cases)
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
Through Video Conferencing
11/05.02.2021
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr.
Rajendra Krishna submits that identical issues are involved in
both the cases, therefore they have been tagged together.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that F.I.R.
has been lodged on presumption and assumption by alleging
that the unit of the petitioners was found closed and that the
coal lifted from BCCL has been disposed of in black marketing.
It is submitted that it has not been alleged in the F.I.R. that any
amount of coal was ever recovered from the market said to
have been sold by the petitioners. Learned counsel has also
submitted that F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence so far as the petitioners are concerned.
Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-7 of the present
petition to submit that the coal was de-controlled as back as in
the year 1992, although some control was contemplated, but in
view of the fact that coal was de-controlled, there could be no
illegality even if the coal was sold instead of being taken to the
unit of the petitioners. Learned counsel has also referred to
coal supply agreement as contained in Annexure-5/1 which is
dated 15th November, 2008 and he submits that after making
due enquiry in connection with the unit of the petitioners, the
fuel supply agreement has been entered into between Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. and the petitioner company and therefore it
cannot be said that the unit of the petitioners is non-existing.
3. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this
court in the case of the petitioners being W.P. (C) No. 688 of
2004 to submit that the officers of the BCCL on 20.09.2002 had
found that the unit of the petitioners was in running condition.
Learned counsel submits that merely because some of the
villagers on the spot had stated that unit of the petitioners is
not running for a number of years, the same cannot be a basis
for lodging an F.I.R. Learned counsel submits that entire
criminal proceeding against the petitioners is an abuse of the
process of law and therefore the entire case against the
petitioners is fit to be quashed in exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Mr.
V.S. Sahay has opposed the prayer and submitted that
investigation of the case is not yet over and therefore it is
premature to say that no case is made out against the
petitioners. By referring to the F.I.R. he submits that F.I.R. by
itself is not the encyclopaedia of all the allegations and
therefore on the face of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that no case
at all is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel has
further referred to para 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit to
submit that there is enough material against the petitioners
which has come up during investigation and in the name of
closed factory the petitioners have been lifting linkage quota
for black marketing and unit of the petitioners was found
closed when informant had visited the spot. Learned counsel
submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this
case and the principle of law which has been laid down in the
case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in
(1992) Supp(1) SCC 335 no interference is called for by
quashing the F.I.R. itself. He also submits that the points which
have been raised by the petitioners at best can be taken at
appropriate stage before the learned court below once the
investigation is over and charge sheet, if any, is submitted by
the opposite party.
5. Arguments concluded.
6. Post these cases for judgment on 12.02.2021.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
