JUDGMENT H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present petitioner is the accused No.4 in Criminal Case No.220/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khanapur (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the trial Court ) for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)4 and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act ). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, in the lands bearing re-survey No.124 & 127 within the limits of Manasapur village an illegal iron ore extraction and its transportation had taken place by the involvement of the accused Nos.1 to 31 and thus have committed offence punishable under Section 4(1)4 and Section 21 of MMDR Act. The petitioner has sought for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him. 3. The respondent-State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. Though the matter is listed today for Admission, however, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 5. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments at the outset submits that the act of the trial Court in taking cognizance is with respect to an offence which does not exist in the eye of law, as such, the entire act of taking cognizance as against the present petitioner/accused No.4 stands vitiated in the eye of law. He further submits that, there is no whisper about the alleged involvement or participation of the present petitioner in any manner in the alleged act. Merely because certain pits were said to have been found in the lands belonging to the petitioner by that itself it cannot be concluded that he too had participated in the alleged offences. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument at the outset concedes that, the chargesheet has been filed with respect to a non-existing provision of law and similarly cognizance also has been taken with respect to a non-existing provision of law. He further submits that, it is only accused Nos.1 to 3 who in their alleged voluntary statements have stated that certain ores were extracted from the land bearing Survey No.127 belonging to the present petitioner. He further submits that, it is only accused Nos.1 to 3 who in their alleged voluntary statements have stated that certain ores were extracted from the land bearing Survey No.127 belonging to the present petitioner. Barring the same, there is no whisper in the entire charge-sheet of any allegations against the present petitioner. 8. A perusal of the certified copy of the chargesheet produced by the petitioner along with the memorandum of petition would go to show that, the charge sheet has been filed alleging the offences punishable under Section 4(1)4 and Section 21 of the MMDR Act. A perusal of the MMDR Act would go to show that Section 4though contains sub-section 1, but it does not contain either clause or sub-clause bearing No.4 under it, as such, admittedly, and as conceded by the learned HCGP, there is no such provision as Section 4(1)4 of MMDR Act. Section 21 speaks about the penalties which can be imposed for the alleged violation of Section 4 and 4A of MMDR Act. Thus, there is no such offence which can be said to be punishable under Section 4(1)4 of MMDR Act or there is no such alleged violation under the said Section, since the said Section is not in existence. 9. A perusal of the order regarding taking of cognizance passed by the trial Court, a certified copy of which is also being produced along with the petition, would go to show that, the learned Magistrate while taking the cognizance also has not mentioned as to for which alleged offences he has taken cognizance. The said order in its first paragraph reads as below: Perused the Charge-sheet and entire prosecution papers. The prosecution has made out the prima facie case against the accused No.1 to 31. Hence, cognizance is taken against the accused No.1 to 30 10. Nowhere the said order mentions regarding which offence the cognizance is taken. Even the note put up by the Office of the trial Court would also go to show that the charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 4(1), 4, 21 of the MMDR Act. Whereas, the charge-sheet would go to show that it is filed for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)4 and 21 of the MMDR Act. Whereas, the charge-sheet would go to show that it is filed for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)4 and 21 of the MMDR Act. Thus, even the note put up by the Sheristedar is also a different provision of law than what is alleged in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency. Even if the Sheristedar s said note in the order sheet of the trial Court is taken into consideration, still it is not understandable as to how come Section 4(1)4 are shown differently when Section 4 includes 4(1) also. Thus punctuating those Sections was not by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet, but it was by the Sheristedar for the reasons best known to him. Furthermore, as already observed, the Magistrate also has not shown as to what alleged offences cognizance has been taken in the mater. Thus from the angle of procedure and technicalities, neither the charge-sheet nor the order taking the cognizance as against the present petitioner, cannot sustain. Secondly, on the merit also a perusal of the charge-sheet would go to show that, except the alleged voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 there is no whisper about the alleged involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime, by any of the other charge-sheet witnesses. The learned HCGP also with more emphasis has submitted the same to the Court though he is representing the State. Even in the alleged voluntary statement of A1 to A3 also, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are shown to have stated that the co-accused have extracted iron ore from the land of the present petitioner. There is no mentioning as to whether there was any involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged act or was it to the knowledge of the said petitioner. Even the panchanama said to have been drawn in the spot, the copy of which are produced would also go to show that there is no mentioning about the alleged role said to have been played by the present petitioner in the alleged offence. Thus, merely because some pits are said to have been found in the land said to be belonging to the present petitioner, by that itself the Investigating Officer appears to have included the name of the present petitioner. Thus, merely because some pits are said to have been found in the land said to be belonging to the present petitioner, by that itself the Investigating Officer appears to have included the name of the present petitioner. If the same are permitted to be continued and the present petitioner is compelled to face the trial, it would result in putting a person to hardship in facing a trial without there being any specific allegations or charge against him. Thus, it is a fit case, where in order to prevent the abuse of process of law, the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated in Criminal Case No.220/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khanapur is quashed, however, confining the same as against the present petitioner.