JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, 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 FIR in connection with Danguaposi Railway P.S. Case No.10 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.100 of 2008 registered for the offence under sections 420, 468, 120B of the I.P.C and sections 4, 21, 23 and 23/B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, pending before learned Railway Magistrate (Chakradharpur) at Chaibasa. 3. The FIR was registered alleging there in that informant along with Mines Inspector in course of verification of iron ore came to know that one M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. has dispatched certain quantity of iron ore from Danguaposi Railway siding and while informant inquired into the same M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. has denied that they have dispatched any quantity of iron ore from Danguaposi Railway Siding. It is also stated that M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. has lodged a case as Nawamundi P.S.Case No.57 of 2008 against unknown persons. It is alleged that in between July 2007 to Sept. 2007 total quantity of 12,850.350 MT iron ore was dispatched. The valve of iron ore was Rs.3.21 crore. It is further alleged that aforesaid quantity of iron ore was dispatched without any transit challan and govt. has sustained huge loss of royalty and on enquiry from station manager it is revealed that in the placement of inland name of M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. and M/s Sachivinam Exports Pvt. Ltd. was mentioned and name of applicant Maa Chhinnamastika Sponge Iron Ltd. Hence this case. 4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the order dated 3.3.2011 the entire criminal proceeding was stayed. He submits that later on, the petitioners have filed anticipatory bail application which was withdrawn on the ground that the interim protection was provided to the petitioners. By way of inviting attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nothing has come against these petitioners and unnecessarily the petitioners have been implicated in this case. By way of inviting attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nothing has come against these petitioners and unnecessarily the petitioners have been implicated in this case. By way of inviting attention of the Court to Annexure-‘B’ and ‘C’ annexed with the counter affidavit dated 18.4.2011, he submits that by Annexure-‘B’ M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. was addressed and annexure-‘D’ also suggest that M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. was involved in transporting of the iron ore however the petitioners have unnecessarily been made accused in the petition. On this ground, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. He further submits that since till then the investigation has not been completed, which is against the mandate of section under section 173 Cr.P.C. The case of quashing is made out. He refers to section 173 Cr.P.C and submits that the said section provides that at the earliest the investigation is required to be completed and to buttress his argument he relied in the case of ”Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra” reported in AIR 2008 SC 3077 . He further submits that when the special Act is there in light of section 4, 21, 23, the case can only be maintained under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 22 of the said Act speaks of only filing of the complaint whereas in the present case the FIR is registered. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that since there is delay in investigation however now the investigation is at the verge of completion. He submits that delay occurred due to stay of the proceeding by this Court by order dated 3.3.2011. He submits that the petitioners have not cooperated with the investigation agency and in view of the allegation made there are huge loss occurred and the name of the sister company as well as of the petitioner has come in the investigation and in that view of the matter, this Court, at this stage, may not exercise its power under section 482 Cr.PC. 6. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that it has been discussed in the counter affidavit that indent of M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. was received from Station Manager, Danguaposi which disclosed that M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. and M/s Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited was mentioned as applicant and consignee which has been further disclosed that aforesaid company without Form-D under Jharkhand Mines Transport Challan Regulation 2005 has transported the iron ore. One letter pad of M/s Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited was also found. It has been further stated that indent has been found along one more person, M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. It has been disclosed in paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit that Director of M/s Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria and owner of M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Private Limited is also Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria. It appears that these two companies are sister companies of Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria who is the Director of both the companies. So role of Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria is under cloud. On this ground, that now indent M/s Chhinmastika Sponge Iron Limited name has not come is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding when it is found that Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Beltheria is the Director of both the companies. Now a days, white collar crime is being made by the persons by way of forming the shell company are well known. Further only the FIR is under challenge and the allegations are there against the Director of the company, in that view of the matter, and when it has been submitted that investigation is at the verge of its completion, at this stage, the quashing of the FIR is not warranted. Further if the argument of Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted with regard to section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957 and sections 4, 21 and 23 of the said Act, when only the complaint can be maintained, that can be looked into once the charge sheet is submitted, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Jayant v. State of M.P.”, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 . Thus, these points are well settled in view of the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the judgment relied by Mr. Roy, the learned counsel is not helping the petitioners. Further the Court finds that there is no doubt that investigation is required to be completed at the earliest in light of the section 173 Cr.P.C however entire criminal proceeding has been stayed by this Court by order dated 3.3.2011 at the instance of the petitioners, and for that, investigation agency cannot be blamed and that is why, the judgment relied by Mr. Roy, in the case referred supra is not helping them. Further there are parameters of quashing of the FIR and the allegations have been made out, the FIR cannot be quashed which is well settled in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal” reported in (1992) Supp.1 SCC 335. 7. No relief can be extended to the petitioners, and accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.86 of 2011 is dismissed.