JUDGMENT : This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 14.7.2008 passed in Complaint case bearing C/1 case no.11 of 2006 whereby cognizance of the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and also under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act has been taken against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that one Rajendra Sharma, a Forest Guard while was patrolling along with another Forest Guard Anthrons Soreng in Gurdari Forest, he saw accused Md. Kasim Ansari along with other labourers extracting Bauxite by digging earth of the forest area but they on being chased, succeeded in taking to their heels. When they returned at the site, they found 5 tonnes of Bauxite lying there and it was suspected that at the instance of some persons of M/s Hindalco Industries Limited, Md. Kasim Ansari has committed that offence and, accordingly, offence report dated 21.6.2006 was sent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla . On submission of the said offence report before the Divisional Forest Officer, (West Lohardaga), Ranchi Forest Division, the matter was enquired into by Forester, Netarhat and in course of enquiry from the villagers, it came to now that said Md. Kasim Ansari at the instance of the petitioner(Manager Gurdari Mines) gets Bauxite extracted from the forest area and accordingly, prosecution report was submitted on 14.7.2008 and on that day cognizance of the offence as stated above was taken against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the offence report dated 21.6.2006 one Md. Kasim Ansari was seen taking out Bauxite along with other labourers from the forest area and without there being any reason, it was suspected that he committed that mischief at the instance of some persons of M/s. Hindulco Industries Limited and when the matter was enquired into by Forester, he from the villagers came to know that it was the petitioner at whose instance said Md. Kasim Ansari used to get Bauxite extracted from the forest area but the name of the villagers had not been mentioned, still cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner which is quite bad as prosecution report as well as offence report is quite vague, so far indulgence of the petitioner in the alleged offence is concerned. On the said prosecution report, the prosecution cannot secure conviction even if the entire allegation made in the prosecution report remains uncontroverted and hence, the entire criminal prosecution is fit to be set aside. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that Forester had submitted prosecution report when he, in course of investigation, did find the involvement of the petitioner in illegal mining. Under this situation, it was submitted on behalf of the State that when the prosecution report does disclose about the commission of the cognizable offence, it cannot be quashed on its threshold and hence, the impugned order needs no interference. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record it does appear that the prosecution report seems to have been submitted after holding enquiry on the allegation made in the offence report but surprisingly, name of the villagers, who allegedly disclosed about the involvement of the petitioner, has not been mentioned either in the body of the prosecution report or in the witness column, rather in the witness column name of only three persons, the informant, a Forest Guard, another Forest Guard, who had accompanied the informant to forest at the time of alleged offence and the Forester are there, who seems to have derived their knowledge about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence by the villagers whose names have not been disclosed. In that view of the matter, whatever material has been collected by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner that does not appear to be legal. In that view of the matter, whatever material has been collected by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner that does not appear to be legal. Consequently, the entire prosecution case is liable to be quashed in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) holding therein that High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash the proceedings in cases of following categories: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. For the reason discussed above, this case certainly falls within the third category as the materials upon which the prosecution is embarking to prosecute the petitioner is not legal. Under this situation, it would be highly improper to allow the petitioner to suffer rigor of the trial as there would be virtually no chances of securing conviction of the petitioner even if the entire material collected remains uncontroverted. Accordingly, the entire prosecution of Complaint case bearing C/1 case no.11 of 2006 including the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla is hereby quashed so far petitioner is concerned. In the result, this application is allowed.