Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the sole petitioner under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of case No. RC 13 (A)/2000 (R) which was registered under Section 120b read with 420, IPC and Section13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Another petition has also been filed for seeking protection from coercive action of respondent (CBI ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The Investigating Officer, Dy S. P. CBI, SPE, Ranchi lodged an FIR stating therein that the accused persons including the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they abused their respective official position and they also helped the private firm, namely, M/s. C. T. C. C. by way of illegally and unauthorisedly transferring differing grade of coal/slurry to the private firm (C. T. C. C.) and also by way of intentionally and dishonestly suppressing relevant facts before the Honble Courts, as a result of which C. C. L. Ranchi was put to a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 90 lakhs. It is further alleged that M/s. C. T. C. C. did not deposit the value of the coal to be lifted as it was not in position to sell such a huge quantity of coal and neither the petitioner, the then Chief of Marketing, C. I. L. nor Shri R. P. Srivastava, the then General Manager (Sales and Marketing) CIL, Ranchi asked M/s. C. T. C. C. to deposit the coal value and to lift the coal. It is further alleged that it was decided/recommended during a meeting held jointly by the Director (Finance) C. C. L. Ranchi C. G. M. Argada Area, CCL, Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL, C. G. M. ( Sales and Marketing Division) CCL,ranchi etc. to impose a penalty on M/s. C. T. C. C. in case it failed to lift ten thousand M. T. of coal per month as per the orders of the Honble Supreme Court. to impose a penalty on M/s. C. T. C. C. in case it failed to lift ten thousand M. T. of coal per month as per the orders of the Honble Supreme Court. When this note duly recommended by the Committee was put up with the accused, the petitioner, the then Director (Technical) an ( Projects and Planning) C. C. L. Ranchi, he observed in favour of the party to the effect that"the party shall have to be made to forego the unlifted quantity after stipulated, period, and it will in itself, be sufficient and recover/ penalising for unlifted quantity may not be required". This observation of the petitioner was for promoting the interest of Contractor M/s. C. T. C. rather than that of CCL, Ranchi. It is further alleged that after expiry of 20 months, accused Shri S. K. Shriva the then General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi and Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. C. T. C. C. entered into an unwarranted agreement (MOU) on 23-3-2000, by which M/s. C. T. C. C. was given a chance for lifting coal from Bokaro, Barkakana, Sayal and Dhori Area in addition to the aforesaid three Collieries of Argada area, as allowed by the Coal Controller. After the expiry of stipulated period of 20 months, M/s. C. T. C. C. was allowed by the accused persons including the petitioner to lift extra quantity of 45000 M. T. of Steam Coal at the rate applicable to the actual uses and thereby C. C. L. Ranchi was put to a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 90 lakhs and corresponding to wrongful gain to the private party (C. T. C. C.) and themselves. ( 3 ) THE petitioner alleged in the application that the respondent No. 1 has no authority to institute this case as it has got no jurisdiction, when the said Authority, namely, C. B. I. can only operate within the confines of a State, only if the State concerned has given an appropriate consent required to be given u/s. 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The State of Jharkhand was born on midnight of 14/15th November, 2000 whereas this FIR was lodged on 15th November, 2000 and as such the respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite consent of State of Jharkhand and as such the institution of the said case was without any authority of law. The State of Jharkhand was born on midnight of 14/15th November, 2000 whereas this FIR was lodged on 15th November, 2000 and as such the respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite consent of State of Jharkhand and as such the institution of the said case was without any authority of law. It is also alleged that this FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as there is no specific or direct allegation against the petitioner to constitute the offence against the petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the respondent No. 1 also filed counter-affidavit controverting the allegations as made out by the petitioner and it is claimed that the notification has been issued by the State of Jharkhand under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act according consent to all members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise power and jurisdiction under the said Act in the whole of the State of Jharkhand in respect of registration and investigation of the case. It is further claimed that there is a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner who was holding responsible post at the relevant time and a huge amount of CC. L. was misappropriated under deep conspiracy. It is further claimed that the First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner and others in routine course and not at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, nor there is any material to show about mala fide motive or intention and as such the application filed by the petitioner is fit to be rejected. ( 5 ) MR. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the whole prosecution on two counts : (i) The respondent No. 1 has got no jurisdiction to register and institute the case against the accused persons including the petitioner in absence of requisite consent from the State of Jharkhand, which was born on midnight of 14/15th November, 2000 and there was no requisite consent for institution of the case; (ii) The registration of the First Information Report on the ground that the allegation as made out in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make a case against the petitioner. At the same time, it is also submitted that this case has been initiated at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 with mala fide intention as the petitioner was already selected and placed as number one on the selection list by the Public Enterprises Selection Board and the respondent No. 4 was placed as number two and filing of this F. I. R. was only for a purpose of stopping the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman, C. I. L. to discredit him at the instance of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. On this score, the Senior Counsel relied in the cases of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527), K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2001 : (1998 Cri LJ 2897) and Union of India v. V. N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC 1082 ). ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Mr. P. P. N. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (CBI) contended before me that there is no illegality in registering FIR against the accused persons including the petitioner who was holding responsible post at the relevant time and a huge amount of CCL was misappropriated under deep conspiracy of the accused persons including the petitioner by favouring the Contractor M/s. C. T. C. C. It is also argued that there is no question of legal bar in the institution of the First Information Report by the CBI as required consent has duly been notified vide Notification No. 2 dated 1-1-2001 authorising the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power conferred under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the said Notification was treated as effective from 15th November, 2000 and so the respondent No. 1 has acted in accordance with law and FIR was lodgedwithin the jurisdiction because the appropriate consent has duly been accorded by the State of Jharkhand. It is further argued that the allegations levelled against the accused persons including the petitioner, prima facie, constitute the offence and there is a specific allegation against the petitioner as well who conspired with the accused persons resulting a loss of about Rs. It is further argued that the allegations levelled against the accused persons including the petitioner, prima facie, constitute the offence and there is a specific allegation against the petitioner as well who conspired with the accused persons resulting a loss of about Rs. 90 lakhs to C. C. L. It is further argued that the investigation is at the very initial stage and against the order of stay passed by the Honble Calcutta High Court in W. P. No. 352 of 2001, the respondents also moved before the Apex Court, by which the investigation was allowed to continue as per the Order dated 2-3- 2001. It was also argued that the petitioner neither in the capacity of Director (Technical) (P and P) nor in the capacity of C. M. D. , C. C. L. Ranchi took any punitive action against M/ s. C. T. C. C. for the default as well as the M. O. U. was signed by accused Shri S. K. Shrivastava on behalf of C. C. L. as per instruction of Shri Akla, the petitioner vide note dated 18-3-2000 which shows the connivance with M/ s. C. T. C. C. and there is no cogent material to show mala fide intention or motive for institution of the First Information Report. The counsel for the respondent also relied upon the cases reported in State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, IAS (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222 : ( AIR 1991 SC 1260 ) and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Nyamavedi represented by its Member, K. Nandani, Advocate, 1995 Cri LJ 2917 ). ( 7 ) OBVIOUSLY, notification has already been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and the State of Jharkhand accorded the consent to all members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to execise powers and jurisdiction under the said Act and the said Notification was ordered to be treated as effective from 15-11-2000. It is also clear that the respondent No. 1 moved before the Apex Court against the Order dated 23-2- 2001 passed by single Judge, Calcutta High Court by which the Central Bureau of Investigation was restrained from carrying on any further investigation and the Apex Court permitted the respondents by Order dated 2-3- 2001 to continue the investigation. It is also clear that the respondent No. 1 moved before the Apex Court against the Order dated 23-2- 2001 passed by single Judge, Calcutta High Court by which the Central Bureau of Investigation was restrained from carrying on any further investigation and the Apex Court permitted the respondents by Order dated 2-3- 2001 to continue the investigation. ( 8 ) FROM perusal of the First Information Report which was registered under Section 120, IPC also and there is allegation against the petitioner as well for promoting interest of M/s. C. T. C. C. rather than that of C. C. L. , Ranchi. No doubt, the petitioner was holding responsible post during the period and there was a wrongful loss to C. C. L. Moreover, the investigation, which has just started, in my view, should not be interfered at this very initial stage. It is well settled that extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspectionin the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi ( 1999 (3) SCC 259 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1216 ), it was observed by the Apex Court as under :"it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premises that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR, the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. " ( 9 ) MERE fact that the offence was committed during the course of commercial transaction by itself not sufficient to quash the complaint. For quashing an FIR, the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. " ( 9 ) MERE fact that the offence was committed during the course of commercial transaction by itself not sufficient to quash the complaint. ( 10 ) THE allegations as made out in the First Information Report clearly constitute the offences and if on the basis of allegations, a prima facie case is made out then this Court should be reluctant to quash the proceeding. Not only that, this Court is not justified in judging the probabilities, reliability and genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR. It is equally settledthat quashing of criminal proceeding at the inception stage by the High Court is not called for merely on the ground of mala fide. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the whole facts and circumstances coupled with the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. The application for seeking protection from coercive action stands to be rejected. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .