IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.857 of 2017 1. Shahnawaz Ashraf.
2. Faiyaz Alam Ansari.
3. Irshad Ansari @ Md. Irshad Alam Ansari.
4. Tarannum Sabreen @ Tarannum Sabri 5. Tamanna Shadab …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Zainab Parveen ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony has been paid to the Opp. Party No.2. Issue notice to the Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Until further orders, there shall be stay of proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No.2602 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.854 of 2017 Baijnath Prajpati …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Shakunti Devi ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.853 of 2017 1. Abdul Sakur.
2. Md. Esrail @ Izrael Miya @ Isrile Miyan.
3. Md. Hadis @ Hadish Miya @ Hadish Mian.
4. Md. Rasid @ Md. Rashid.
5. Md. Ikram @ Ekrar Miya @ Ekram Miyan. …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Badula Khatoon ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.841 of 2017 Dhirendra Kumar Pandey …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sheo Pujan Gupta @ Sheo Pujan Prasad Gupta.
3. Guru Sao.
4. Bigan Gupta.
5. Chhathu Gupta ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: Issue notice to the Opp. Party Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 5th December, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.845 of 2017 Uma Shankar Chaudhary @ Sintu Choudhary …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Gopal Krishna Tiwari ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 04/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order taking cognizance has already been challenged in this Court in which the entire criminal proceedings have been stayed. In this view of the matter, let this case be listed along with Cr.M.P. No.51 of 2015, after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2 in that case. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.1104 of 2015 Krishna Kant Gorai …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Piyali Gorai ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 09/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that the parties were present yesterday, but since on account of Reference, the Court could not be held after 11.30 a.m. the parties have returned back. As prayed for, list this case on 14th December, 2017 at 1.45 P.M. in Chambers on which date both the parties shall physically present. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the respective parties. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.445 of 2016 Subhashish Tewari …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Anjali Tewari ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Advocate ---- 10/22.11.2017: Pursuant to order dated 12.09.2017, learned counsel for the respective parties as well as petitioner and opp. Party no.2 are present. On the last occasion on 12.09.2017, a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Opp. Party No.2 was handed over to her. Today, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, by way of draft, will be handed over to the Opp. Party No.2. Both learned counsels as well as the respective parties have agreed to the following terms and conditions, which would finally settle the matter between them:- a. Total amount towards permanent alimony has been fixed at Rs.14,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid and encashed by the Opp. Party No.2. A further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as indicated, shall be handed over to the opp. Party No.2 today itself. b. A suit for divorce has been filed by the petitioner/ being Matrimonial Suit No.181 of 2017which is pending before the court at Durgapur and both the parties have agreed that on the next date of hearing i.e. on 15.12.2017, they shall file an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting the marriage dissolved on mutual consent. Further, a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is also pending at Durgapur instituted by the Opp. Party No.2 and it has been agreed upon by the Opp. Party No.2, in presence of the learned counsel as well as her father, that every endeavour shall be taken by her to get the said case disposed of since the parties have entered into a compromise. c. The bank locker is not being permitted to be operated upon on the application made by the father of the Opp. Party No.2. It has been agreed upon by the Opp. Party No.2 as well as her father that they shall make necessary application before the bank concerned so that the said locker be operated and necessary inventory be prepared with respect to the ornaments of the said locker so that efforts be taken with respect to the jewellery, which was given by the family members of the opp. Party no.2 be returned back to her. d. As regards, rest of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, it has been agreed upon that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of draft shall be handed over to the Opp. Party No.2 on 15.02.2018. So far as rest of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is concerned, it has been undertaken by the petitioner that the said amount shall be deposited in one go before this Court on 15.04.2018, after which necessary orders shall be passed on the present application as also the draft if produced shall be handed over to the Opp. Party No.2. If by any circumstances, the cases as indicated above, are not disposed of by 15.04.2018, the petitioner shall still bring the draft of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Opp. Party No.2, so that the same be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General and shall be handed over to the opp. Party no.2, as and when litigations between the parties finally comes to its logical conclusion. It is expected that since the matrimonial suit before the court below at Durgapur has been fixed for 15.12.2017, on which date, the application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act as already agreed upon by the parties shall also be filed, necessary application with respect to operating of locker shall also be made by the father of the Opp. Party No.2 and the exercise with the respect to division of the ornaments shall also, as far as possible be made on the same date. Let a photocopy of the draft, which has been handed over to the Opp. Party No.2 by the petitioner be kept on record. List this case on 15th February, 2018 at 1.45 P.M. In Chambers. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the respective parties. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.874 of 2017 1. Kamla Devi.
2. Sweta Soni @ Sweta Prasad.
3. Sonu Soni @ Sonu Kr. Soni. …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Rameshwar Prasad Sonar ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. P. Lala, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 04/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier the daughter of the petitioner No.1 had instituted Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.224 of 2014 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the Opp. Party No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as a retaliation to the said case, instant complaint case was instituted and the perusal of the complaint reveals a false story that when the complainant had gone out from the house, the accused persons had broken the almirah and taken Rs.30000/- and subsequently, with a malicious intention, complaint case was instituted against the petitioner. Issue notice to the Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Until further orders, there shall be stay of proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.249 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.869 of 2017 1. Afroz Ali Mirza 2. Naushad Ali Mirza @ Naushad Ali …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Parbin Begum. ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 04/22.11.2017: Heard the parties. The petitioners, in this application, have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Mango P.S. Case No.311 of 2015 (G.R. No.2311 of 2015 instituted under Sections 341, 307, 387, 354, 506, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier niece of the petitioners has filed first information report under Section 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and as a retaliation to the same, the subsequent criminal case has been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even otherwise there are no allegation against the petitioners, which will justify their prosecution under Sections 341, 307, 387, 354, 506, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the investigation is at a nascent stage and nothing has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether charge sheet has been submitted or not. Prima facie, there appears to be allegation of assault committed by the petitioners, which led to institution of the case under Sections 341, 307, 387, 354, 506, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to subsequent first information report being retaliation to the earlier case instituted by the niece of the petitioners is concerned, the same is by way of defence and it cannot be decided at this stage as with respect to intention of assault on the part of the petitioners, the same is existing in the first information report. Thus, there being no reason to entertain this application, the same is hereby, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at an appropriate stage, if so advised. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.856 of 2017 1. Sitaram Snehi.
2. Mahadeo Ram @ Mahdeo Mahto.
3. Ashok Kumar.
4. Kapildeo Pandey @ Kapildeo Tiwari.
5. Ram Lakhan Pandey.
6. Jagmohan Prasad.
7. Umesh Mahto @ Uday Prasad @ Dara 8. Indradeo Prasad @ Indradeo Mahto …..Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….Opposite Party ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Sinha, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 04/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the co-accused had moved in Cr.M.P. No. 863 of 2017 in which the informant has been noticed. Learned counsel further submits that the entire occurrence is on account of a land dispute for which one of the members of the accused side has already filed title suit being Title Suit No.39 of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the informant as Opp. Party No.2. Issue notice to the newly impleaded Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the newly impleaded Opp. Party No.2 along with Cr. M.P. No.863 of 2017. Until further orders, there shall be stay of proceeding in connection with Sadar (Muffassil) P.S. Case No.1262 of 2015 (G.R. No.4558 of 2015) arising out of T.R. No.3159 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.839 of 2017 1. Ravindra Kumar Thakur.
2. Trilok Kumar Agrawal.
3. Vikash Kumar Agrawal. …..Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….Opposite Party ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Md. Asiff Khan, APP ---- 04/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the Manager and Director of Sri Sakambri Industries Pvt. Ltd., Maheshpur with whom Pakur Lampus entered into an agreement Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the quality of paddy was unsatisfactory, as a result of which, the petitioners had on several occasions mentioned this fact. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that an enquiry was conducted, which concluded that the situation in which the paddy was being kept has led to its deterioration and, therefore, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being not responsible for the aforesaid act on the part of the Lampus, the petitioners could not be prosecuted for the misappropriation and defalcation of the government money as well as for violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Mr. Md. Asif Khan, learned Addl. P.P. is directed to take instruction with respect to the investigation carried out by the I.O., for which he is granted four weeks' time. List this case after four weeks under the heading 'For Admission'. Let the name of Md. Asif Khan be printed in the daily cause list. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Md. Asif Khan, learned Addl. P.P. for needful. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.940 of 2017 Md. Imran Khan …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Swati Pandey ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. S Srivastava. Advocate ---- 04/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have settled their dispute for which she has referred to a joint compromise petition. Mrs. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 submits that she has to take instruction as to whether the amount which was agreed upon by the petitioner has been paid to the Opp. Party No.2 or not for which she prays two weeks' time. As prayed for, list this case after two weeks under the same heading. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.967 of 2017 Banmali Das @ Gurupado Das @ Banamali Das …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Sarita Das ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a complaint case was instituted being C/1 Case No.1642 of 2013, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for instituting an FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Olidih P.S. did not have the jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation made, it was requested to transfer the case to Adityapur Police Stattion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that however, with respect to the same and similar allegation, another complaint was instituted being C/1 Case No.307 of 2014, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Officer-in-Charge, Mango (Olidih) Police Station, leading to institution of the Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.96 of 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when investigation into first information report, for the same and similar allegation, is under progress, the institution of subsequent complaint/FIR is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the second FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. Issue notice to the Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Until further orders, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.96 of 2014 (G.R. No.551 of 2014), pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. In the meantime, Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned APP shall also take instruction as to whether pursuant to request made, Olidih P.S. Case No.1642 of 2013 has been transferred to the Adityapur Police Station or not, for which he is granted four weeks' time. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. for needful. Let the name of Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. be printed in the daily cause list. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.943 of 2017 1. Dheeraj Kumar Jain.
2. Sunita Devi.
3. Sheela Pandey.
4. Laxman Modi.
5. Shakuntala Devi.
6. Pawan Kumar Barnwal @ Pawan Kumar.
7. Sonu Kumar Barnwal.
8. Arjun Modi.
9. Baijnath Pandey.
10. Manohar Pandey …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Rabindra Kumar Barnwal ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP ---- 02/22.11.2017: It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Opp. Party No.2 is the husband of the petitioner No.2 against whom a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was instituted in the year 2010 in which the Opp. Party No.2 was convicted, which was affirmed up to appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after coming out from jail, he had instituted a complaint case, which is by way of retaliation, in which allegation has been levelled that the petitioner no.2 has solemnized marriage with the petitioner No.1 whereas the petitioner no.1 in fact had given shelter to the petitioner No.2 when she had gone to visit Ayodhya. So far as rest of the petitioners are concerned, they are the witness to the earlier case lodged by the petitioner No.2 against the Opp. Party No.2, which itself goes to show vindictive nature of the opp. Party in making false allegation against the petitioners. Issue notice to the Opp. Party No. 2 to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process must be filed by 30th November, 2017. List this case under the heading 'For Admission' after appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Until further orders, there shall be stay of proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.440 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma. Ravi/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.950 of 2017 Sanjay Kumar Tiwary …..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….Opposite Party ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Nagmani Tiwari & Ajit Dubey, Advocates For the State : APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: Heard the parties. The petitioner, in this application, has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.15 of 2016 (G.R. No.189 of 2016) including order dated 22.07.2017 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made in the first information report is two folds:- First is with respect to non-execution of the work in terms of the agreement; and the second is non renewal of the bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had deposited fixed deposit of Rs.8,60,000/- in place of bank guarantee and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, by non renewing the bank guarantee, has misappropriated government money. However, with respect to non execution of the work is concerned, nothing has been stated by the petitioner in his defence. In such situation, therefore, so far as non execution of the work is concerned, there appears to be a prima facie allegation of misappropriation of government money against the petitioner, which cannot be decided by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 22.07.2017 and having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at an appropriate stage. Ravi/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.964 of 2017 Nagendra Kumar Sharma @ Nagendra Kr. @ Banti Sharma …..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….Opposite Party ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Roy, APP ---- 03/22.11.2017: Heard the parties. The petitioner, in this application, has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.57 of 2017 (G.R. No.963 of 2017) instituted under Sections 414, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first information report was instituted after delay of 10 days and in the meantime, the petitioner has produced documents with respect to the coal in question but the same was never considered by the I.O. The valid challan was with respect to purchase of the coal from government department and selling of the same to M/s Afruddin Sheikh of Filwariya Rajmahal, Sahebganj. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the coal in question was to be transported through vehicle, which was purchased from the factory premises of the petitioner, the police raided the vehicle and thereafter, on the complaint that the documents with respect to the coal was not produced by the driver and khalasi of the vehicle in question, the same was seized and the first information report was instituted after almost 10 days. The petitioner is a genuine owner of the coal in question and as such, he could not been proceeded against in a criminal case. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents, which have been referred to by the petitioner, cannot be considered at this stage, when the investigation itself is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner happens to the owner M/s Bhawiya Coal Traders, who has taken a plea of purchasing the coal in question from the government department and selling it to M/s Afruddin Sheikh of Filwariya Rajmahal, Sahebganj. This Court in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark on a meticulous examination of the documents produced by the petitioner, which can best be considered during the trial. In such view of the matter, there appears to be a prima facie allegation against the petitioner to be prosecuted in the criminal case and accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at an appropriate stage. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Ravi/-