ALOK FUELS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(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.