JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chandil P.S.Case No.50/14 corresponding to G.R. No.345/2014 by which F.I.R. has been lodged under sections 414/34 IPC and section 30(2) of the Coal Mines Act. The further prayer is made for quashing of the part of the charge sheet dated 28.06.2014 by which decision has been taken to continue the investigation against the petitioner who is owner of the Truck No.JH05K-7181 and the aforesaid case is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Saraikella Kharsawan. 3. The case was lodged stating that the police has presently got information during their regular inspection visit that Truck No.JH05K-7181 loaded with coal dust was coming from Chawka to Jamshedpur and said information was received on 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, the entire police force intercepted the said truck at around 9.30 p.m. and upon interception, the driver of the truck has enhanced the speed of the truck but the aforesaid truck was chased by patrolling party and finally the truck was stopped. The driver has somehow managed to run away taking the benefits of darkness. In the truck, it was found that the coal dust was loaded for which a seizure list as prepared and the present case was lodged. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that final form was submitted against the Driver of the truck in which trial has been concluded wherein it has been held that no case under section 414 IPC and section 30(2) of the Coal Mines Act is made out and the driver namely Jagat Singh has been acquitted. On this ground, he submits that the case has not been proved against the driver. There is no necessity of proceeding in the investigation. 5. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that earlier anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected twice. He submits that the investigation is going on. If anything comes in favour of the petitioner that will be submitted in the charge sheet. 6. There is no necessity of proceeding in the investigation. 5. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that earlier anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected twice. He submits that the investigation is going on. If anything comes in favour of the petitioner that will be submitted in the charge sheet. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact and considering the earlier report of the police that investigation against the petitioner is going on, there is no bar on further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.PC. The entire fact will emerge when once the investigation against the petitioner will be completed. This is not a case for interference on the ground of acquittal of co-accused wherein investigation against the petitioner is still going on. 7. Cr. M.P. No. 2595 of 2021 is dismissed.