JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R in connection with Nowamundi P.S.Case No.11 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.121 of 2008 for the alleged offence under sections 414/34 of the IPC read with sections 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment, 1989), sections 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 including the orders dated 13.8.2008, 24.10.2008, 02.02.2009 and 27.10.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa. The order taking cognizance dated 18.7.2012 is also under challenge. 3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that the informant pursuant to the direction of the DIG, Kolhan Area, Chaibasa along with the police force had taken steps for prevention of illegal mining of iron ore. It was further alleged that during the course of the inspection on 26.02.2008 when the informant reached the plot of M/s Swati Screening Plant, the labourers working in the said plot fled away from there and inspite of calls, nobody turned up. It was further alleged that about 6.30 p.m., one of the directions of M/s Swati Screening Plant namely, Sanjay Agarwal @ Sanjay Sarayan (petitioner no.2) came and informed that he will provide necessary papers relating to screening activity in the aforesaid plot within one week. It was further alleged that till 7.3.2008 no documents were produced by the aforesaid director of M/s Swati Screening Plant due to which the informant came to the conclusion that M/s Swati Screening Plant is carrying out the work of screening of iron ore in the aforesaid plot illegally. It was further alleged that till 7.3.2008 no documents were produced by the aforesaid director of M/s Swati Screening Plant due to which the informant came to the conclusion that M/s Swati Screening Plant is carrying out the work of screening of iron ore in the aforesaid plot illegally. Under the circumstances the informant along with necessary police force raided the premises of M/s Swati Screening Plant and in the presence of the witnesses, a seizure list was prepared and it was further alleged that the director of M/s Swati Screening plant had committed offence under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 33,41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and section 21 of the Mines and Mineral( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned court has taken cognizance and later on by way of I.A., the order taking cognizance has been allowed and a composite petition was directed to file which has been filed. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is one of the Directors of M/s Swati Screening Plant and petitioner no.2 is working as Manager under the aforesaid plant. He further submits that at the time of alleged raid was conducted by one Inspector of police the Inspector was not in the premises of M/s Swati Screening Plant and there is no screening plant in the Jharkhand or elsewhere. He submits that the aforesaid alleged raid was conducted in the plant of M/s Pact Export Private Limited being plot no.298 at Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West. He submits that in fact No Objection Certificate was issued from the Circle Officer, Nowamundi, Singhbhum West and the certificate of registration issued under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turn Over) Rules, 1957 certifying in plot no.298, Khata No.12. He further submits that for the alleged occurrence the case was registered in the year 2008 and for release of the seized articles M/s Pact Export Private Limited has filed an application on 19.3.2008 and pursuant to that police has released the said articles in favour of the M/s Pact Export Private Limited. He submits that no case is made out against the petitioners. He submits that no case is made out against the petitioners. He further relied in the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 and he refers to definition section of 2(g) which defines meaning of dealers registration. He further submits that Rule 8 of the said Rules speaks of penalties and the penalties is for non registration and the punishment which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 1 year or both. He further refers to sub section 3 and 4 of the said rules and submits that in view of this, no case is made out so far as the petitioners are concerned. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that Inspector of police was very much in the premises of M/s Swati Screening Plant representing by petitioner no.2 on the spot. She submits that the petitioners have set another firm namely M/s Pact Export to save their skin. She refers to Annexure-3 and submits that from that it is apparent that Pact Exports have all their activities in the State of Orissa. She submits that the FIR is dated 07.03.2008 the occurrence is of the date 26.2.2008 whereas Annexure Certificate of Registration is dated 03.03.2009 and letter of Pact Export is dated 19.3.2008, Invoice i.e. Annexure-4 is dated 31.01.2008 for Village Sosopi but only for 1528.890 M.T only whereas the seized stock of iron ore at the premises of M/s Swati Screening Plant is 50025 and 200 tons. She further submits that at around 18:30 hours Sanjay Agarwal the petitioner no.2 came and promise to show the relevant document for the required plant but till 7.3.2008 he did not produce any document which raised suspicion of illegal mining of iron ore by the owner Vivek Kejriwal and the raid conducted on 7.3.2008 at around 14.30 hours and the employees and the workers of the plant ran away looking to the police force. She submits that the said screening plant was situated on a Raiyyati land of Shankar Munda and there was no certificate issued from the Forest Department to run the said plant. She submits that the said screening plant was situated on a Raiyyati land of Shankar Munda and there was no certificate issued from the Forest Department to run the said plant. She further submits that there is no permission taken by them to use the land of the plant as per the C.N.T. Act and even there is no papers issued from the Mining Department mentioned in paras 46, 49, 129 131 and 133 of the case diary. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the raid was conducted on 7.3.2008 and the FIR was registered alleging therein that illegal mining was being operated by the petitioners. Looking to the Central Sales Tax Certificate issued in favour of M/s Pact Export Private Limited it is crystal clear that it is of the year 2009. The question remains that when Sanjay Agarwal the petitioner no.2 has stated to show the documents with regard to running of the plant and why he has not shown the same to the police which are the disputed question of fact which can be decided only in the trial. If the plant was operated in accordance with law, there was no occasion of running away of the workers of the plant in question. Releasing of the articles in favour of M/s Pact Export Private Limited and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners are the disputed question of fact which can only be decided in the trial. The Court finds that there are disputed question of facts and there is no case of interference is made out. 7. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.1525 of 2010 is dismissed. 8. However, the trial will proceed in accordance with law without being prejudiced of this order. 9. Interim order stands vacated. 10. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly.