Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the FIR registered on 31.1.1990 on the basis of the Jardbeyan of the informant Sadhu Yadav. 3. The informant instituted the FIR against 27 accused persons including the petitioner. The allegation in the FIR is that by Letter No. 264 dated 25.1.1991 twenty seven hundred twenty metric ton Slake/ Coal was allotted to 27 bricks furnish owner. The above said coal which was allotted to the 27 bricks furnish owner was sold in black market on the basis of forged signature of some persons in the log book. The owners of the bricks furnish were not even have knowledge that such allotment has been made and in connivance with the office the forged book has been prepared and the coal has been sold in the black market. It has also been alleged that it is necessary for the bricks furnish owners to take permission if they want to store more than one metric ton coal as provided by G.S.R. 49, dated 7.10.1985 since the licence has not been taken by the brick furnish allottees and as it alloties provided by District Magistrate, which is punishable under Essential Commodities Act. A prayer has been made in the FIR to punish those persons who are found guilty for commission of offence under the Essential Commodities Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in which a decision of Division Bench has been annexed as Annexure-2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the alleged date of occurrence the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licences) Order, 1984 was not workable in relation to coal because the State Government could not fix necessary storage limit as required under the law. However, it has been submitted that after 1985 till 1992 no further storage limit was fixed. From 1992 the coal itself has been deleted from Schedule of the Unification Order. In the similar facts a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6232 of 1994, Sidhesfawar Pandey and another V/s. State of Bihar and others, has decided that unless storage limit is fixed the Unification Order will not be workable in relation to coal. In the similar facts a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6232 of 1994, Sidhesfawar Pandey and another V/s. State of Bihar and others, has decided that unless storage limit is fixed the Unification Order will not be workable in relation to coal. It has also been stated by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case was instituted in the year 1990 and till date no chargesheet has been submitted. Leaving apart the delay part of this case, the criminal proceeding cannot continue against the petitioner when no offence has been committed under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is well settled that the right of police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the Court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under the Cr PC. Statutory power of the police to investigate is however not unlimited rather it is subject to certain well recognised limits. One of them is, if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would not have authority to undertake investigation. Where the police transgress . its statutory power of investigation, this Court under Section 482, Cr PC, can entertain the investigation to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court to secure ends of Justice. 5. Considering the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the similar facts and also that no cognizable offence is made out even on the face of the statement made in the FIR it is a fit case in which the FIR be quashed. 6. Accordingly the FIR dated 31.1.1990 is quashed and this application is allowed.