M/S Maa Chhinnamastika Sponge ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2102 Jhar

                                        1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 86 of 2011

----

M/s Maa Chhinnamastika Sponge Iron Ltd. and Another .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioners       :-      Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
       For the State             :-      Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
                                         ----


11/19.05.2023       Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding as well as the FIR in connection with Danguaposi

Railway P.S. Case No.10 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.100 of 2008

registered for the offence under sections 420, 468, 120B of the I.P.C and

sections 4, 21, 23 and 23/B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957, pending before learned Railway Magistrate

(Chakradharpur) at Chaibasa.

3. The FIR was registered alleging there in that informant

along with Mines Inspector in course of verification of iron ore came to

know that one M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. has dispatched

certain quantity of iron ore from Danguaposi Railway siding and while

informant inquired into the same M/s Anindita Traders and Investment

Ltd. has denied that they have dispatched any quantity of iron ore from

Danguaposi Railway Siding. It is also stated that M/s Anindita Trades and

Investment Ltd. has lodged a case as Nawamundi P.S.Case No.57 of

2008 against unknown persons. It is alleged that in between July 2007 to

Sept. 2007 total quantity of 12,850.350 MT iron ore was dispatched. The

valve of iron ore was Rs.3.21 crore. It is further alleged that aforesaid

quantity of iron ore was dispatched without any transit challan and govt.

has sustained huge loss of royalty and on enquiry from station manager

it is revealed that in the placement of inland name of M/s Anindita

Traders and Investment Ltd. and M/s Sachivinam Exports Pvt. Ltd. was

mentioned and name of applicant Maa Chhinnamastika Sponge Iron Ltd.

Hence this case.

4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that by the order dated 3.3.2011 the entire criminal proceeding

was stayed. He submits that later on, the petitioners have filed

anticipatory bail application which was withdrawn on the ground that the

interim protection was provided to the petitioners. By way of inviting

attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondent State, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that nothing has come against these petitioners and unnecessarily the

petitioners have been implicated in this case. By way of inviting attention

of the Court to Annexure-'B' and 'C' annexed with the counter affidavit

dated 18.4.2011, he submits that by Annexure-'B' M/s Anindita Traders

and Investment Ltd. was addressed and annexure-'D' also suggest that

M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. was involved in transporting of

the iron ore however the petitioners have unnecessarily been made

accused in the petition. On this ground, he submits that entire criminal

proceeding may kindly be quashed. He further submits that since till then

the investigation has not been completed, which is against the mandate

of section under section 173 Cr.P.C. The case of quashing is made out.

He refers to section 173 Cr.P.C and submits that the said section provides

that at the earliest the investigation is required to be completed and to

buttress his argument he relied in the case of "Pankaj Kumar v. State of

Maharashtra" reported in AIR 2008 SC 3077. He further submits that

when the special Act is there in light of section 4, 21, 23, the case can

only be maintained under the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 22 of the said Act speaks of only filing

of the complaint whereas in the present case the FIR is registered. On

this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be

quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent State submits that since there is delay in

investigation however now the investigation is at the verge of

completion. He submits that delay occurred due to stay of the proceeding

by this Court by order dated 3.3.2011. He submits that the petitioners

have not cooperated with the investigation agency and in view of the

allegation made there are huge loss occurred and the name of the sister

company as well as of the petitioner has come in the investigation and in

that view of the matter, this Court, at this stage, may not exercise its

power under section 482 Cr.PC.

6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for

the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds

that it has been discussed in the counter affidavit that indent of M/s

Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. was received from Station Manager,

Danguaposi which disclosed that M/s Anindita Traders and Investment

Ltd. and M/s Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited was mentioned as

applicant and consignee which has been further disclosed that aforesaid

company without Form-D under Jharkhand Mines Transport Challan

Regulation 2005 has transported the iron ore. One letter pad of M/s

Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited was also found. It has been further

stated that indent has been found along one more person, M/s Anindita

Trades and Investment Ltd. It has been disclosed in paragraph no.13 of

the counter affidavit that Director of M/s Chhinmastika Sponge Iron

Limited Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria and owner of M/s

Anindita Trades and Investment Private Limited is also Pradeep

Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria. It appears that these two companies are

sister companies of Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria who is the

Director of both the companies. So role of Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep

Beltheria is under cloud. On this ground, that now indent M/s

Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited name has not come is not a ground to

quash the entire criminal proceeding when it is found that Pradeep

Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria is the Director of both the companies.

Now a days, white collar crime is being made by the persons by way of

forming the shell company are well known. Further only the FIR is under

challenge and the allegations are there against the Director of the

company, in that view of the matter, and when it has been submitted that

investigation is at the verge of its completion, at this stage, the quashing

of the FIR is not warranted. Further if the argument of Mr. Roy, the

learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted with regard to section 22

of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and

sections 4, 21 and 23 of the said Act, when only the complaint can be

maintained, that can be looked into once the charge sheet is submitted,

in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

"Jayant v. State of M.P.", reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670. Thus,

these points are well settled in view of the above judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, and the judgment relied by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel

is not helping the petitioners. Further the Court finds that there is no

doubt that investigation is required to be completed at the earliest in

light of the section 173 Cr.P.C however entire criminal proceeding has

been stayed by this Court by order dated 3.3.2011 at the instance of the

petitioners, and for that, investigation agency cannot be blamed and that

is why, the judgment relied by Mr. Roy, in the case referred supra is not

helping them. Further there are parameters of quashing of the FIR and

the allegations have been made out, the FIR cannot be quashed which is

well settled in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of "State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal" reported in (1992) Supp.1

SCC 335.

7. No relief can be extended to the petitioners, and

accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.86 of 2011 is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,