- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S case no.461 of 1998 including the order dated 13.6.2002 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that when information was received that a truck, bearing registration no.UP -32T -6335 loaded with coal is proceeding towards Dhansar Road, it was intercepted by the personnel of CISF who asked the driver and cleaner to produce documents under which coal was being carried. They failed to produce any document and therefore, a case was registered as Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case no.461 of 1998 under Sections 379, 411, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code suspecting the coal to be stolen. The matter was investigating upon. During investigation, the statements of the driver and also the cleaner were recorded. Further during investigation when it transpired that coal belongs to M/s. Premier Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., a document was called for from the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department which was made available. From it, it could be known that the petitioner is one of the partners of the said firm. Thereupon a supplementary charge sheet was submitted whereby the petitioner was sent up for trial. Thereupon cognizance of the office was taken, vide order dated 13.6.2012 against the petitioner which is under challenge.
(3.) MR . Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor anything did transpire during investigation showing involvement of the petitioner in any manner, still the charge sheet has been submitted simply on the ground that coal belongs to a firm known as M/s. Premier Hard Coke Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. to which the petitioner as per document supplied by the Commercial Tax Department is one of the partners but that document never happens to be relevant for prosecuting the petitioner.;