JUDGMENT D.N. Upadhyay, J- Present criminal writ application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners arising out of Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 136/1998 [G.R. Case No. 2184/1998] and the order dated 23.09.2008, passed by Shri V.K. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad and also the Order dated 02.05.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 304/2008 whereby the Order dated 23.09.2008, passed by Shri V.K. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad was affirmed. 2. The facts of the prosecution case is that on 19.06.2008, in the afternoon between 12:25 to 12:30, two Dumper bearing Registration No. BR 17-G 7934 and BHG 8585, loaded with sand were seized by the informant. The Challans produced by the drivers against transportation of sand were considered forged and fabricated for the reasons assigned in the written report. Since the vehicles were carrying sand on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, the informant who happened to be the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, lodged a written report at Sudamdih P.S. Dhanbad, on the basis of which Jora Pokhar P.S. Case No. 136/1998 was registered against the contractor under whose control the aforesaid vehicles were plying. 3. It is submitted that the contention made in the written report, if taken to be true, offence punishable under Rule 40 or the offences punishable under Bihar (Jharkhand) Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 shall be applicable. It is further pointed out that for the offence committed under the provisions of Bihar (Jharkhand) Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, no Court shall proceed on the Police report. Section 22 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 clearly indicates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Where special law is applicable, general law like Indian Penal Code shall not be made applicable. Learned counsel has submitted that after receiving report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and proceeded with the trial. The petitioners had raised this point at the time of framing of the charge but it was not considered and the prayer was rejected vide Order dated 23.09.2008. Learned counsel has submitted that after receiving report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and proceeded with the trial. The petitioners had raised this point at the time of framing of the charge but it was not considered and the prayer was rejected vide Order dated 23.09.2008. When the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, challenging the said order vide Criminal Revision No. 304/2008, the Revision Application was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2009. The continuance of such criminal prosecution is required to come to an end because it amounts an abuse of process of Court and, therefore, the prayer made in this writ application may be allowed and the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioner and the subsequent orders may be quashed. Learned counsel has relied in the case of Manish Khemka Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2009(2) East Cr. C. 535 (Jhr.) and in the case of Ajay Krishna Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2006(3) East Cr. C. 50 (Jhr.) and submitted that the prosecution of accused on the basis of information given to Police and not on the basis of a complaint before the Magistrate is illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents – State has opposed the arguments and pointed out that earlier writ application preferred vide Criminal Misc. No. 5159 of 1998 (R) for quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.1998. The petitioners have formed habit of filing petitions under different provisions of law before different forum with an intent to delay the trial and to some extent they have succeeded because the case was instituted in the year 1998 but the trial has not yet been concluded because of filing of such petitions. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the materials available before me. Before coming to any conclusion, I feel it desirable to express that Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be availed for the purpose of frustrating the procedural law under which a criminal/ civil trial is being done. Rightly or wrongly the instant case was instituted in the year 1998 for which the petitioners preferred criminal writ being Criminal Misc. Rightly or wrongly the instant case was instituted in the year 1998 for which the petitioners preferred criminal writ being Criminal Misc. No. 5159 of 1998 (R) before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution but the same was dismissed. After ten years, at the stage of hearing on the point of charge, objection was raised again challenging the legality of the criminal prosecution but the learned Court, after considering pros and cons, the evidence available on record, directed to frame charge on 23.09.2008. Thereafter, the impugned order was challenged before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2008 which was also dismissed and then again this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is needless to say that the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court is concurrent and the petitioners had already availed that concurrent jurisdiction by filing Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge challenging the Order of the Magistrate by which the charge was directed to be framed against the accused persons. Here in the High Court, the petitioners have succeeded to some extent by getting an interim order on 06.04.2010 by which the proceeding of the G.R. Case No. 2184 of 1998, pending in the Court of V.K. Tiwari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, has been stayed. It is not expected that at every stage of criminal trial, with an intention to cause delay, criminal writ jurisdiction shall be invoked unless there is apparent abuse of process of Court or a malicious prosecution has been going on. 7. Now coming to the facts available in the case at hand. Admittedly, the criminal prosecution was not launched under any of the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 rather a written report was lodged after seizure of sand transported on the vehicles referred to above and the transportation was on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, as alleged in the F.I.R.. Normally Minor Mineral Concession Rules is applicable for the purpose of mining operation and the business consequent to such mining. Normally Minor Mineral Concession Rules is applicable for the purpose of mining operation and the business consequent to such mining. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances it is required to be considered whether transportation of sand on the basis of forged and fabricated challan would constitute offences exclusively punishable under B.M.M.C. Rules 1972 and the special law shall prevail or the person committing such forgery is liable to be punished under the general provisions of law like Indian Penal Code. It was not indicated by the informant in the written report that challans produced by the drivers were authentic but irregularity and illegality were appearing in respect of sand so despatched, rather the indication was that the challans so produced were apparently forged and fabricated on its face. Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter the criminal prosecution under the provisions of Indian Penal Code on the police report was rightly launched because the offence of forgery is not covered under the Special Law like B.M.M. Rules. The Judgments relied upon are based on other facts which are not available in the case at hand and therefore, it will be of no help to the petitioners. 8. Be that as it may, charges were directed to be framed by the learned Magistrate, the revision application against said order was refused by the Sessions Judge, the Writ Application for quashing of the F.I.R. filed at an initial stage, was dismissed and the case is pending since the year 1988 and the trial has been withheld by applying various tactics by the petitioners. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I do not feel inclined to allow this Writ Application. Consequently, it is dismissed. But no order as to costs. The interim stay granted stands vacated and the Court below is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Application dismissed.