1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the first information report being Nirsa P.S. Case No. 152 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 2341 of 2009, registered for the offence under Sections 414/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 32(2) of the Coal Mines Act as against the present petitioner said to be pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the coal which was involved in this case has been released in favour of one Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh pursuant to the petition filed by him. It is submitted that before releasing the coal, the learned court below had called for a report from the police and the police had supported the release of coal in favour of Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh and the coal was ultimately released in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid circumstances no case is made out against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the case was instituted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as the special Act i.e. Coal Mines Act and in view of the special Act, no FIR could have been instituted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that in aforesaid view of the matter the entire criminal case including the F.I.R. is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that no case for quashing of the FIR has been made out. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the present case has been filed for quashing of the first information report being Nirsa P.S. Case No. 152 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 2341 of 2009 which was lodged against the present petitioner under Section 414/120B of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 32(2) of the Coal Mines Act and the said case is said to be pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. This court finds that the F.I.R. is based on the written report submitted by opposite party No. 2 before the officer in charge of Nirsa Police Station. 7. This court finds that the F.I.R. is based on the written report submitted by opposite party No. 2 before the officer in charge of Nirsa Police Station. 7. The prosecution story in short is based on the written report given by the opposite party No. 2 before the Officer in charge of the Nirsa Police Station that on receiving the confidential information about stocking and illegal extraction of coal, a team was constituted who reached the Narshimha Indhan Udyog and found that a truck bearing number WB 15A/2286 was being loaded by steam coal by labourers with the help of baskets and on seeing the police the labourers started fleeing away and some persons with cycles having sacks loaded with coal on the said cycles also started fleeing away, leaving the cycles. Some persons were also emptying sacks loaded with coal and all of them fled away taking advantage of darkness. On seeing the raid some persons stated that Narsimha Indhan Udyog, belongs to Ishaque Beg, and that Nawal Singh, Manu Tiwari, Pravin Rana and Shankar Agrawal and Jahid Khan, in league with each other deal in illegal mining and theft of coal and the FIR describes the modus of the said crime. 8. This court further finds that one person namely Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh, filed a surrender cum bail petition along with a bunch of papers which were sent for verification vide order 11.08.2009 and the matter was directed to be posted on 22.08.2009. Said Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh, had filed a petition dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure-3) for release of seized coal in his favour which was opposed by the police by filing a verification report dated 20.08.2009 (Annexure- 4) on the ground that the seized coal was apparently purchased from the various cycle riders who were made to excavate the coal illegally. The matter was taken up on various dates and was adjourned to 01.09.2009. Although the present case has been filed on 06.11.2009 , but the subsequent order sheet of the learned court below from 01.09.2009 is not on record and accordingly this court is not in a position to ascertain as to what happened to the petition for release of coal filed by Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh. 9. Although the present case has been filed on 06.11.2009 , but the subsequent order sheet of the learned court below from 01.09.2009 is not on record and accordingly this court is not in a position to ascertain as to what happened to the petition for release of coal filed by Nawal Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh. 9. In this case, counter affidavit has been filed on 06.06.2011 and it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the case was found true on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and charge sheet No. 243/2009 dated 07.10.2009 was submitted against the accused namely Nawal Singh @ Nawal Singh and the investigation was pending against the accused persons namely (i) Ishaqua Beg, (ii) Manu Tiwari @ Tarkeshwar Tiwary (petitioner), (iii)Praveen Sharma, (iv)Shankar Agrawal, (v)Jahid Khan, (vi) Owner of the Truck No. WB-15A-2286, (vii) driver of the Truck No. WB-15A-2286 (viii) owner/driver of Motorcycle No. WB-38F-4439 vide paragraphs -97 to 99 of the case diary No. 14 dated 07.10.2009 against whom sufficient material was found and there is also a supplementary case diary No. 12 dated 01.11.2010 along with the progress report dated 04.08.2010. 10. This court finds that in the present case there was an interim order dated 10.05.2011 staying further proceeding in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 152/2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 2341 of 2009 as against the present petitioner and it was also directed that result of the present case along with other cases would be subject to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2647 of 2010 with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6724 of 2010. This court finds that the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2647 of 2010 with Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 6724 of 2010 dated 22.03.2010 is on record whereby notices were issued and the operation of the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by this court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 226 of 2008 and also further proceeding in connection Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2008 was stayed till further order. 11. This court further finds that WP (Cr) no. 226 of 2008 was ultimately dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 22.05.2015 after disposal of the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the matter was remanded to this court for fresh consideration. 11. This court further finds that WP (Cr) no. 226 of 2008 was ultimately dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 22.05.2015 after disposal of the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the matter was remanded to this court for fresh consideration. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the aforesaid judgment dated 22.05.2015 passed in WP (Cr.) no. 226 of 2008 are quoted as follows: - “15. The submissions appeared to be misconceived as Section 4 (1-A) does stipulate quite clearly that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any minerals otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Admittedly, the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer’s Rues, 2007, has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 23 (C) (1) and (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and, hence, contravention of any of the provisions of the said rules would be punishable in terms of Section 4 (1-A) of the Act and, thereby, the offences alleged, would be cognizable. 16. So far Sub-section (2) of Section 21 is concerned, that seems to have been laid down for a guidance as to in what terms punishment can be inflicted for contravention of the rules. 17. Thus, I am of the considered view that offence being cognizable can be inquired into and investigated upon by the police. However, submission was also advanced to the effect that in terms of the provisions of the MMRD Act, cognizance can be taken only upon filing of the complaint by a competent officer but the case is being investigated upon by the police, submission of the charge sheet by him would not amount it to be a complaint and, thereby, cognizance cannot be taken upon such final form. 18. That stage has still not come up. Therefore, that issue never requires to be addressed with at this stage. However, since I did find that FIR can be maintained for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules as aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application and, hence, it is dismissed.” 12. 18. That stage has still not come up. Therefore, that issue never requires to be addressed with at this stage. However, since I did find that FIR can be maintained for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules as aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this application and, hence, it is dismissed.” 12. Upon perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, it cannot be said that ex-facie no case is made out against the petitioner who is admittedly named as an accused in the F.I.R. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the coal was claimed by one Nawal Kishore Singh which was released in his favour after a favourable report was given by the police is not borne out of the records placed before this court, rather the records indicate otherwise. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this court is not inclined to quash the FIR and finds that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merits. This court also finds that said Nawal Kishore Singh is also an accused in the case. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is special law and special procedure to deal with the alleged offences relating to coal and accordingly no F.I.R. could have been lodged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. This court is of the considered view that this argument of the petitioner is also devoid of any merit considering the facts and circumstances of this case when seen in the light of the ratio of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772 (State (NCT of Delhi) versus Sanjay and other analogous cases). 14. This court finds that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772 (supra), the point which fell for consideration was as to whether the provisions contained in Section 21 and 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 operate as a bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which constitutes offences under Sections 379/114 and other provisions of Penal Code, 1860. In other words, the issue was whether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly exclude the provisions of the Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence both under the Penal Code and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The matter related to illegal removal of sand from river bed and selling of such sank. In the said case, the F.I.R. was instituted by the police suo motu on the charges of illegal mining under Section 379/114 of the Indian Penal Code besides being cognizable offence and under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The accused in the said case had challenged the registration of the case on the ground that offence, if at all committed, cognizance could have been taken under the provisions of the MMRD Act only on the basis of complaint to be filed under Section 22 of the Act by the authorized officer. 15. Apart from the aforesaid case arising in Delhi, other cases from other High Courts including High Court of Gujrat were under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was found that conflicting views were taken by the Gujrat High Court, the Delhi High Court, the Calcutta High Court, the Madras High Court and the Jharkhand High Court. Accordingly, the issue was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court who was of the definite opinion that ingredients constituting offence under the MMDR Act and ingredients of offence of dishonestly removing sand and gravel, which is the property of a State, from the riverbeds without consent, is a distinct offence under Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that on receipt of a police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the offence under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of MMDR Act. Consequently, it was held that contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore were overruled. Paragraph 72 and 73 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: 72. Consequently, it was held that contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore were overruled. Paragraph 72 and 73 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: 72. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of the State’s possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravel from the government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 CrPC before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 73. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act vis-à-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the riverbeds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act. Consequently, the contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently, the contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently, these criminal appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Magistrates concerned to proceed accordingly. 16. This court finds that in the present case, the F.I.R. has been registered not only for alleged offence under Sections 414/120B of the Indian Penal Code but also under the Coal Mines Act and it is for the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance of offence upon submission of charge sheet, to find out the Sections under which cognizance is to be taken. As per the counter affidavit, against the present petitioner and others and charge-sheet has been submitted only against Nawal Singh on 07.10.2009. 17. This court, upon considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble supreme court is of the considered view that merely because allegations under the Coal Mines Act is also included along with the alleged offence under Indian Penal Code in the F.I.R., the F.I.R. itself cannot be quashed. It cannot be said that ex-facie upon perusal of the FIR no offence is made out against the petitioner. Moreover, it is not clear from the records of this case as to whether as on date investigation has been completed or not and as to whether charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner or not. 18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this court is not inclined to quash the FIR in exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly the present petition is hereby dismissed. 19. However, dismissal of this case will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner before the learned court below. 20. The learned trial court is directed to proceed in connection with the petitioner as per law. 21. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 22. Interim order granted earlier is vacated. 23. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e.mail.