ORDER : Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Domchanch P.S. Case No. 304 of 2009 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 413 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report instituted by the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma is to the effect that it was detected that the petitioner was involved in storing stone and had established crusher machine without there being any licence issued by the Inspector of Factories or a no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly there is no seizure of the stones which were alleged to have been found and which forms the subject matter of the case and in such circumstance no case under Sections 379, 413 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It has also been submitted that an application was made before the Factory Inspector to run the business of stone crusher and, accordingly, a factory licence was issued on 11.08.2009. Learned counsel further submits that for the purposes of running the crusher machine the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma had also issued a licence being Licence No. 76 of 2009 dated 31.07.2009. It has been submitted that so far as the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is concerned, Rule 67 of the said Rules is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and it has, therefore, been prayed that since no offence is made out as against the petitioner the entire criminal proceedings instituted deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that from the First Information Report itself, it appears that the petitioner was carrying on illegal storage of stone without having any licence for such storage. It has been submitted that Rule 67 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner as without having any valid licence, he was carrying on his business. 6. It has been submitted that Rule 67 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner as without having any valid licence, he was carrying on his business. 6. The First Information Report reveals that the petitioner did not have necessary licence either from the Inspector of Factory or from the Pollution Control Board to run a crusher machine or in keeping the stones. Rule 67 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 reveals that any person who intends to deal in minor mineral outside the licence area, has to obtain a licence. 7. As has been disclosed in the First Information Report the petitioner did not have any necessary licence to carry on such business and in such circumstances there is clear violation of the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. As regards, the offences under Sections 379, 413 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the fact and circumstance does suggest that prima facie a case is made out under the said provisions. Moreover, it appears that the investigation is still pending and in such circumstances, it would not be justifiable to interfere in the investigation when prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various documents with respect to grant of licence in favour of the brother of the petitioner and an agreement which was entered into by one Birendra Lal and the brother of the petitioner with respect to the land which was given on rent for the purpose of carrying out stone business but the same cannot be looked into in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as this Court is not empowered to conduct a roving enquiry or sift through the evidence to come to a conclusion. 8. Having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.