Judgment Prasun Kumar Deb, J. 1. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been registered on the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the first information report of Jamua P. S. Case No. 124 of 1994 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 1234 of 1994 under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, now panding in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, who happens to be respondeat No. 2 and for declaration that detention of truck bearing registration No. BRY 9282 at Giridih Police Station is not illegal but without jurisdiction. 2. The truck in question belongs to petitioner No. 4 (Nand Kishore Roy). It has been alleged that Anil Kumar Dwivedi Officer-in-Charge, Jamua Police Station, Giridih, carried on his own report has registered the above mentioned case and curiously enough he had taken up the investigation himself. As per the report it appears that on 27-7-1994 a confidential information was received by the respondent No. 1 to the effect that the truck bearing registration No. BRY 9282 loaded with 14.630 tonnes of soft coke was proceeded and, according to that confidential information, those soft coke, were stolen materials. 1 he driver of the truck was stopped and he produced cash memo and challan issued by Sri Balaji Briquiette Industries. The said soft coke was being transported to Jagdish Prasad Gupta of Koderma. The respondent No. 1 seized the truck loaded with soft cake and brought it to the police station and made entry in the station diary being Station Diary Entry No. 546 dated 27-7-1994. A preliminary enquiry was made by respondent No. 1 and by visiting M/s. Balaji Briquatte Industries where he met petitioner No. 2 who happened to be the Munshi of the factory and nothing could be verified as the office was closed. The owner of the Industry i.e. petitioner No. 1 was asked to produce licence for making soft coke. He did not produce any paper but he explained about the cash memo as stated by the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 had found that coal was being burnt for making soft coke in the factory premises. The owner of the Industry i.e. petitioner No. 1 was asked to produce licence for making soft coke. He did not produce any paper but he explained about the cash memo as stated by the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 had found that coal was being burnt for making soft coke in the factory premises. Then he visited the District Industries Officer and verified as to whether M/s. Balaji Brjquette Industries have proper licence or not for making soft coke but getting the negative reply, prepared first information report which has been marked as Annexure 1 to this writ application for the offences against the petitioners under the said sections of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report was sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih who mechanically took cognizance and asked for investigation and the investigation was taken up by respondent No. 1 himself. 3. The challenge regarding the first information report by the petitioners is to the effect that the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) has deleted ihe coal from the licence by Notification No. 12 dated 21-4-1992. Similarly Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977, by Notification No. 14 dated 21-4-1992 had also deleted the coal and soft coke from its purview. In such circumstances, it is the case of the petitioners that when no licence is required for the purpose of movement of coal or soft coke, the petitioners cannot be held liable for any criminal offence as contemplated in the first information report. According to the petitioners, M/s. Balaji Briquette Industries had licence under the Factories Act and they used to take coal from Mini Traders of Giridih area under the Mini Trader Scheme for Small Enterprenuers and the Central Coalfields Limited maintained the name and addresses of the parties to whom supply had been made under the Mini Trader Scheme issued on 2-8-1994 by the Area Sales Officer, Giridih, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 4 to this application. It is the further case of the petitioners that renewal of licence under the Factories Act was lying with the authorities and challan had already been given for such renewal along with the renewal fee of Rs. It is the further case of the petitioners that renewal of licence under the Factories Act was lying with the authorities and challan had already been given for such renewal along with the renewal fee of Rs. 1450 at the relevant time and that the said Industry is also registered under the Bihar Sales Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. In such circumstance the Industry owned by the petitioner No. 1 has got right to sell the soft coke manufactured in his factry to others on receipt of proper amount. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent regarding deletion of coal and soft coke from the Unification Order and the Display Order have not been challenged rather his case is that in view of the letters issued under Annexures A and B, the Industries owned by petitioner No. 1 is not permitted to produce coal from Mini Traders or from any other agencies but it can be done through Small Scale Industries along but this was never the case of the respondent in the first information report. The sections of Penal Code under which the case has been registered, there is not a single or iota of papers or allegations to show that the coal or soft coke seized in connection with the case ever stolen property or the same was being embezzled by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is clear from the annexures filed in the case. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 could not substantiate criminal action against the petitioners. The issue of having no authority of purchasing from Mini Traders is only an after thought one. Moreover, regarding Sections 468, 467, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, there is nothing on the record to show from the first information report as to which papers have been forged by the petitioners. After scrutinising the first information report and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. We could find that the first information report (Annexure 1) is nothing but a misuse of the power by the police personnel for harassment of the Petitioners. After scrutinising the first information report and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. We could find that the first information report (Annexure 1) is nothing but a misuse of the power by the police personnel for harassment of the Petitioners. Moreover respondent No. 1 seemed to be overenthuastic when he himself got the first information report registered after preliminary enquiry then he himself took up investigation which he wanted to justify by putting Section 156 of the Gode of Criminal Procedure but the said section does not come in help or aid in respondent No. 1 in support of his defence. The truck and the coal (soft coke) had already been released by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 5-8-1994. 5. In the nature and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, I am of the considered view that the first information report lodged against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is true that the writ Court is very slow in interfering or quashing with the first information report but when on the face of it, it could be found that the same has been manufactured only for the harrassment of the persons and that too for the abuse of the process of law, the same should be done for maintaining law and debar highhandedness of the police personnel. 6. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the first information report and investigation thereto mentioned above is hereby quashed. Ravi Nandan Sahay, J. 7 I agree.