JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Initially the prayer was to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR but subsequently, upon charge sheet having been submitted against the petitioners, Interlocutory Application No. 1453 of 2012 was filed in which additional prayer has been made to quash the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad whereby and where under, learned court below has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in connection with R.C. Case No. 06 (A) of 2011-D. 3. The brief facts of the case is that M/s. Maa Parvati Coke Industries firm was allotted coal under Fuel Supply Agreement with B.C.C.L. Dhanbad for compulsory utilization of the said coal in its factory/plant but it diverted the said coal during the period 30.09.2008 to 23.03.2011 to the tune of 67,648 MT in the criminal conspiracy with its sister concern- namely the petitioner no. 1-Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. of which the petitioner no. 2 is the director, thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 5,41,18,400/- to B.C.C.L. Dhanbad and corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioners. It is further alleged that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons manufactured documents to show that the petitioner no. 1-Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. was sold 1633.780 MT hard coke for Rs. 41,65,884 by M/s. Maa Parvati Coke Industries in the month of May and June 2010 through 55 numbers of vehicles but during investigation, it was found that 23 such vehicles are either car or bike, the details of which has been mentioned in the charge sheet. There is also allegation, that petitioner no. 1-M/s. Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. facilitates the accused-sister firm M/s. Maa Parvati Coke Industries being in active criminal conspiracy, in diversion of coal in the name of hard coke during the relevant period. The office premises at Dhanbad of the petitioner no. 1-Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Maa Parvati Coke Industries and M/s. Pradeep Coke Industries all sister concerns are one and the same. The allegation against the petitioner no. The office premises at Dhanbad of the petitioner no. 1-Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Maa Parvati Coke Industries and M/s. Pradeep Coke Industries all sister concerns are one and the same. The allegation against the petitioner no. 2 is that he being the director of M/s. Kanhaiya Power Pvt. Ltd. has been making all the correspondences on behalf of the company as an active director. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. It is next submitted that the petitioners have falsely been dragged in this case by C.B.I. by incorporating their names as accused persons in the charge sheet and the learned court below in most mechanical manner took cognizance for the offences against them. It is next submitted by Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioners have made or executed the documents claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else nor they have altered or tampered with the documents and they have also not obtained the documents by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his senses. Hence, it is submitted that no offence under Section 471 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that as the petitioners have not committed any forgery for the purpose of cheating hence, no offence punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code is made out and as the foundational facts are missing in the charge sheet so mere use of the words from criminal law statute such as dishonestly, fraudulently, cheating etc. cannot make out a criminal offence against the petitioners. It is next submitted by Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners that as in the charge sheet itself it has specifically been mentioned that Deepak Kumar Sanwaria was the authorized signatory of the petitioner no. 1 hence, petitioner no. 2 being a mere director cannot have any criminal liability for being implicated in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order 22.08.2012 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners be quashed and the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR be also set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. 1 hence, petitioner no. 2 being a mere director cannot have any criminal liability for being implicated in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order 22.08.2012 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners be quashed and the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR be also set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for the quashing the FIR, quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the cognizance taken vide order dated 22.08.2012 passed by passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that at the time of taking cognizance by a court in a police case, the detail description and the materials in record is not mandatory requirement and the learned trial court having described in brief the allegations against the petitioners and having applied its mind, the impugned order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 06 (A) of 2011-D does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Sinha that this petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in this type of cases cognizance can be quashed only when the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence and do not make out a case against the accused persons but the perusal of the record reveals that there is allegation against the petitioner no. 2 being the director of petitioner no. 2 being the director of petitioner no. 1 along with co-accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and as part of such conspiracy cheating was made by forging documents and such documents were used as genuine to support the contention of the co-accused persons that coal has been sold by the co-accused to the petitioners to justify the consumption of the same as per the terms of the Fuel Supply Agreement according to which the co-accused were in the obligation to compulsorily utilize the coal received under the supply agreement in its factory/plant and thus, wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 5,41,18,400/- approximately has been caused to B.C.C.L. and corresponding gain accrued to the petitioners. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that because of the allegation against the petitioners, there is no justifiable reason to quash the impugned order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 06 (A) of 2011-D or the entire criminal proceeding or FIR at this stage. 8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. Petition dismissed.