JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the F.I.R., so far as it relates to him. 3. The FIR was lodged as Muffasil P.S. Case No. 67/2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 429 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 379, 120B and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Now the case is pending in the court of learned SDJM, Sadar at Chaibasa. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the allegation is in respect of transportation of Minerals and therefore, the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act will be applicable in this case. He further submits that there is no application of Section 379 as well as other provisions of the Indian Penal Code in this case. 5. After going through the record as well as FIR, I find that minerals were being transported on the basis of fake documents. It is alleged that the minerals i.e. iron ores were obtained by the petitioner illegally and thus the minerals were stolen property. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772 has held that the offence under Section 379 IPC as well as other sections of IPC will be applicable in cases in which there is allegation of stealing of mineral wealth. As per the said judgment, Section 379 IPC will be applicable in this case. Further there is allegation of preparing forged document, which also attract penal offence under IPC. 7. The allegations made in the FIR, prima facie, discloses a cognizable offence where interference with the investigation is not proper. The same can be done only in the rarest of rare case where the Court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious when no offence is made out. In a case where without a thorough investigation, it is not possible to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant/informant are true or not, the FIR cannot be quashed and investigation should be allowed to continue. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, it has to be seen whether any offence is made out on bare perusal of the FIR or not. If any offence is made out, which needs investigation, FIR cannot be quashed. 9. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, it has to be seen whether any offence is made out on bare perusal of the FIR or not. If any offence is made out, which needs investigation, FIR cannot be quashed. 9. After going through the instant FIR, it appears that the FIR makes out an offence, which needs to be investigated. The defence of the petitioner can be seen by the I.O. during investigation. All these allegations which form cognizable offence, need to be investigated. If an allegation, which makes out a cognizable offence, needs investigation on factual aspects, FIR cannot be quashed. 10. Since I find that there are allegations levelled, which constitute cognizable offences, which need to be investigated, I am not inclined to entertain this criminal miscellaneous petition praying to quash the FIR. The defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 11. Consequently, interim order(s), if any, granted earlier, stands vacated.