ORDER : Heard Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Gomia P. S. Case No. 20 of 2002 corresponding to G. R. No. 169 of 2002 including the order dated 04.03.2005 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 511 and 120 B of the I.P.C. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on a confidential information, the informant had inspected the premises of Kathara Washery on 14.01.2002, where he that found good quality coal was being sold with reject category of coal causing financial loss to C.C.L. It has been stated that a letter was written to the General Manager, Kathara Washery to stop the sale of reject coal till further orders. In the meantime, it was found that efforts were being made to remove all the evidences of illegal sale and the Executive Magistrate was sent for inspection. It has been alleged that the report confirmed that the efforts were being made to remove the evidences of illegal sale. It has further been stated that Israel Ansari along with General Manager and the Project Officer connived together for sale of good quality coal along with bad quality of coal thereby causing loss of revenue to the C.C.L. and the State. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Gomia P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet pursuant to which vide order dated 04.03.2005 the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 511 and 120 B of I.P.C. 5. While assailing the impugned order dated 04.03.2005, Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was merely posted as an Area Sales Officer and he did not have any involvement in mixing/loading/unloading of coal. Learned counsel submits that the only job of the petitioner was of forwarding of notice as also sale order to the concerned authorities after verifying the same. Learned counsel further submits that in course of investigation, the supervision note did not reveal the complicity of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the only job of the petitioner was of forwarding of notice as also sale order to the concerned authorities after verifying the same. Learned counsel further submits that in course of investigation, the supervision note did not reveal the complicity of the petitioner. It has been stated that at best the petitioners can be said to have committed dereliction of duty for which the petitioner was departmentally proceeded against. Learned counsel submits that no reason has been assigned in the order dated 04.03.2005 as to why Israel Ansari and Narender Kumar Singh who was also involved in committing the offence had not been sent up for trial. Furthering his argument, it has been stated that the Chief Vigilance Officer had also conducted an inquiry, but no connivance or misconduct on the part of the petitioner was detected. Learned counsel thus submits that since the complicity of the petitioner has not been attracted in view of the fact that the petitioner did not have any hand in loading/unloading of coal and the petitioner having been departmentally proceeded against, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The police in course of investigation had found the complicity of the petitioner and apart from other accused had also submitted charge-sheet against him leading to taking of cognizance vide impugned order dated 04.03.2005. A departmental proceeding was also instituted against the petitioner which proves the charges levelled against him and he was punished by reducing his post to one level below for a period of 3 years against which the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal in which the punishment was reduced vide order dated 30.11.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the act of the petitioner can at best be termed to be a dereliction of duty which has invited a punishment in the departmental proceeding and no criminal case is made out against the petitioner in absence of any mens rea. 7. The said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage as the departmental proceeding rests upon preponderance of probabilities. 7. The said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage as the departmental proceeding rests upon preponderance of probabilities. Whether the act of the petitioner as alleged was a deliberate act with a criminal intent attracting his culpability is to be seen during trial as it would be premature at this stage to consider such prayer when admittedly upon investigation, the role of the petitioner has been detected and charge-sheet has been submitted against him. The allegations made in the FIR is of selling of reject category coal along with the good category coal which has led to huge loss to the CCL. Such act prima-facie attracts criminal culpability of the petitioner as he was the Area Sales Officer at the relevant point of time and as per his own version his job was also of verifying the sale order and forwarding the same to the concerned authorities. At this juncture, the criminal culpability/non-culpability of the petitioner in committing the offence cannot be decided as the final conclusion can only be arrived at after evidences are led in course of the trial. The inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not to be invoked in such fact circumstances as it would stall or make the criminal case come to an end without actually ascertaining the role of the petitioner which would come to the fore only in course of the trial. 8. Prima-facie there is existence of complicity of the petitioner and therefore, in such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner and therefore, having been found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court below immediately and forthwith.