JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. 3. This application has been filed for the following reliefs:- "For quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 26.07.2010 passed in R.C. 9A/2009(D), whereby the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-Cum-A.D.J. XIII, Dhanbad has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners under Sections 420,471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and this case is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) cum Additional District Judge, VIIIth, Dhanbad. " 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.07.2010, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner is a piece of complete non application of judicial mind and accordingly the impugned order is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of law and accordingly in view of the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335 , the proceeding are fit to be set aside. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that in the present proceeding, charge sheet has been submitted and involvement of the petitioner is reflected in the charge sheet itself and after considering the materials collected during investigation as well as charge sheet, the learned court below has taken cognizance of offence which is reflected in the impugned order. Learned court below has clearly recorded that cognizance is being taken after perusal of the case record and other materials available on record and has found primafacie case against the petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition be dismissed. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and there is sufficient material recorded in the charge sheet to proceed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition be dismissed. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and there is sufficient material recorded in the charge sheet to proceed against the petitioner. In the charge sheet it has been inter alia alleged as under:- "Investigation has disclosed that as per Para No. 4.4 of the above said FSA, the seller shall reserve the right to verify including the right to inspect/call for any document from the purchaser and physically verify the end-use of coal and satisfy itself of its authenticity. Though, it was in the knowledge of accused Udayan Bhattacharya that records produced by the said firm with regard to verification of documents as per 13 point check list were not in order, accused Udayan Bhattacharya did not comply with the provisions of the said agreement by not inspecting the unit physically during the relevant period in conspiracy with accused Directors of the aforesaid firm/company with an intention to cheat BCCL in spite of several complaints to the effect that non-functioning of plant of the firm/s under FSA were received in BCCL. Investigation further disclosed that verification of the documents regarding end use of coal was the sole responsibility of CGM/GM (S&M) of subsidiary company i.e. BCCL as mentioned at Para-E of SI.5 of the Minutes of Co-ordination Meeting of CVOs of CIL and its subsidiary companies held on 05.02.2005 at Varanasi. Accused Udayan Bhattacharya was the GM/(S&M), BCCL, during the relevant period." 7. This court further finds that the learned court below has applied its judicial mind on the materials collected during investigation which is recorded in the impugned order itself. Accordingly, the only point, which has been argued by the petitioner, that impugned order taking cognizance is a piece of complete non application of judicial mind, is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, present petition is hereby dismissed. 9. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to raise all the points before the learned court below at appropriate stage that may be available to him under law. 10. It is observed that dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 11. Interim order, if any, stand vacated. 12. 10. It is observed that dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the learned court below in any manner whatsoever. 11. Interim order, if any, stand vacated. 12. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 13. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.