ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Mr. Shailesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a case of the prosecution that when the informant along with police party laid a raid in the business premises of the petitioner in the wee hour on 28.7.2009, they found 200 Metric Tonnes Australian coal stored over there. It was suspected to have been brought by 5 persons after stealing it from the Bokaro Steel Limited, but during investigation the allegation that those 5 persons had brought it from the B.S.L. after stealing it never got substantiated. Even the authority of the B.S.L. during investigation made it known to the I.O. that the coal never belongs to them. In spite of that charge-sheet was submitted for commission of the offence under Sections 414/201/120(B) by this petitioner and upon which cognizance of the offences was taken vide order dated 30.6.2011 passed in Balidih P.S. Case No. 79 of 2009 which is under challenge. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that I.O. has failed to collect any legal evidence showing commission of the offence either under Section 414 or under Section 201/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and. therefore. the Court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence and hence order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed wherein only one paragraph which appears to be relevant is paragraph 16 which reads as under : "That it is stated and submitted that in reply to paragraph 12 of the quashing application that from the facts and circumstances available in course of investigation the 200 MT Australian Coal, seized from the firm's premises was found not to be the part of the 2007 consignment and as such no separate stock balance for this imported coal was maintained." 5. From the reading of the statement made above what emerges is that the coal which was recovered from the premises of the petitioner was taken to be stolen only for the reasons that stock balance for the imported coal had not been maintained. It that is so, it can be said that there was no reason on behalf of the informant to believe that the coal which has been recovered was stolen property. It that is so, it can be said that there was no reason on behalf of the informant to believe that the coal which has been recovered was stolen property. In such situation, there does not appear to be any legal evidence and when there is no legal evidence, order taking cognizance is warrant to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr PC to prevent abuse of the process of law. 6. In this regard. I may refer to decision rendered in a case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , wherein their lordships have said that the High Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr PC for quashing of the proceeding if allegation made against accused persons do not constitute offence alleged, or there is no legal evidence in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge~ Here we have already stated that there is absolutely no legal evidence to support the charges. Accordingly order taking cognizance certainly warrants to be quashed. 7. Accordingly it is quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.