JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to unseal the crusher which was illegally sealed and to allow the petitioners to commence mining operation on his lease hold area which was illegally stopped by the respondent no. 2 on the date of lodging of F.I.R. and also for quashing of F.I.R. and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 06/2018, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Ghatshila. 3. The Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur in February, 2018 constituted a S.I.T. Team for inspection of Plot No. 13(P) Mouza Kaurabani, Panchayat Chakulia, East Singhbhum where the illegal mining work was going thereon. The Mines Inspector, Circle Officer, Chakulia was also the member of the S.I.T. team. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that Megotia Construction Pvt. Ltd was doing the illegal work without permission of the Department as well as the minerals were being stored. On inspection, Munshi namely, Sri Nilamber has informed the said team that in absence of proper challan also minerals have been transported. One Poclain model number as has also been disclosed in the F.I.R excavating the minerals and driver looking the team has ran away from the site. The inspection team also found that the villagers were putting stones on the truck and the same was being carried out by the direction of two accused persons namely, Krishna Pado Mahto and Suresh Singh. It has been alleged that the said two accused persons asked the villagers to make pressure upon the team so that they leave the place in question. It has been alleged that Truck No. WB 33D-3301, BR 164-3636 and JH09R 1631 were being loaded and the driver namely, Kaishar Ansari and Ram Singh forcefully took the vehicles away. It was further alleged that mining was being carried out without any permission of the department and with the help of the Poclain huge quantity of stones have already been mined. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that no document has been shown to the inspecting team. It was further alleged that mining was being carried out without any permission of the department and with the help of the Poclain huge quantity of stones have already been mined. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that no document has been shown to the inspecting team. On these backgrounds, it was requested to take action under Rules 4 and 21 of MMDR Act, Rule 54 of JMMC Rule 2004 and Rule 54 of Amended Rule 2017 and Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and it was also requested to lodge F.I.R. so that illegal mining can be stopped. The request was also made that the case also be registered against Krishna Pad Mahto and Suresh Singh for interfering with the official work. In these backgrounds, F.I.R. has been lodged. 4. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that F.I.R. has been lodged by the competent authority but only complaint was required to be filed however, F.I.R. was registered. He submits that crusher in question has been illegally sealed. On these grounds, he submits that a direction be issued to unseal the crusher in question and the F.I.R. be quashed. 5. Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioners for illegal mining of stones. He further submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the competent authority. According to him if any contradiction is there that can be looked at the time of order taking cognizance. On these grounds he submits that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in view of judgment in the case of Jayant and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670 (Para 21.2 and 21.3). 6. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. and finds that there is serious allegation against the petitioners. Even two accused persons were trying to interfere with the official work of the informant who are government official. The contention of Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted by this Court considering that the F.I.R. has been registered and investigation is still going on. If investigation is not conducted in accordance with law and cognizance has been taken that was required to be examined by the competent Court after taking cognizance. The contention of Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted by this Court considering that the F.I.R. has been registered and investigation is still going on. If investigation is not conducted in accordance with law and cognizance has been taken that was required to be examined by the competent Court after taking cognizance. The contention of the Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner for issuance of direction upon the respondents to unseal the crusher in question, is also not accepted by this Court considering that this is not in correct forum. The said is not required to be considered by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that can be only considered by the competent authority and by the competent court of law where the case is pending. 7. There is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.