D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have invoked the powers of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against them before the Court of learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Lohardaga vide C 2 Case No. 1 of 1999, including the order of cognizance dated 17.11.1999, passed by the learned Court below, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them besides cognizance of the offence under Sec. 4/21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act.
(2.) THE grounds in support of the prayer include, inter alia; (i) That the learned trial Court has passed the order of cognizance without application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case including the allegations in the FIR and has failed to consider that no offence under Sec. 420, IPC or 409, IPC or 120 - B, IPC is made out at all against the petitioners and further, that for violation of any of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, a penal provision is already contained in the said Act and as such, the case could not have been filed for any of the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code. (ii) That though the present two petitioners have been cited as accused but according to the allegations in the complaint petition of the Opposite -Party No. 2, the offender is a company, namely, M/s. Indian Aluminium Company and in absence of any Act of offence attributed to either of the present petitioners, no offence whatsoever could be made out against them and neither could they be criminally prosecuted for any offence committed by the Company. (iii) That even if the offence under Sec. 4/21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act is sought to be made out, yet the offence being punishable to the maximum period of two years, cognizance of the offence could be taken within a period of three years as per the provisions of Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since in the instant case, the very complaint was filed at a belated stage and cognizance was taken more than four years after the alleged date of occurrence, the order of cognizance is bad on this ground also. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.
(3.) IT appears that in response to the notice served upon him, the Opposite -party No. 2/complainant has filed his appearance through his lawyers and a petition for vacating the order of stay of further proceedings of the Court below was also filed on his behalf. After hearing the parties on the aforesaid petition, this Court vide the order dated 26.4.2000 had dismissed the petition of the opposite party No. 2 for vacating the order of stay.;