JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 253 of 2020, and further to quash the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh whereby and where under, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, Section 30 (ii) of Coal Mines Act, Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the form-B issued in favour of the petitioner in terms of the provision of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 was suspended for all kinds of works but on inspection of the factory premises on 24.07.2020 of M/s Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited Hesla, Ramgarh, the informant-District Mining Officer, Ramgarh found that in-spite of suspension of dealer’s licence the company was engaged in activity in violation of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 and was involved in carrying out mining activity and huge amount of coal and dolomite were found stored in the premises of the Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited; which is in violation of the said Rules. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the directors of the said company namely M/s Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shah @ Manish Kumar Sah vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 2753 of 2023 dated 01.05.2024, paragraph no. 10 of which reads as under:- “10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, in view of the principle of law settled both in the case of Jayant and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. 10 of which reads as under:- “10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, in view of the principle of law settled both in the case of Jayant and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra), as already referred to above in the foregoing paragraphs of the Judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the law is well settled that cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or any Rules made thereunder, can only be taken by a court competent to take cognizance of such offence, only upon complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. In para -72 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the said Section 22 will not debar the State Police in registering cases for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence which is punishable under the penal provision of law other than the penal provisions as mentioned in Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act or any Rules made thereunder; and the Magistrate can take cognizance of such offences; in exercise of the jurisdiction vested upon the Magistrates under section 191 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provision of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or any Rules made thereunder, can only be taken by a court competent to take cognizance of such offence, only upon the complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no complaint has been filed directly to the Magistrate or any court concerned in this case hence, the cognizance of the offences punishable under Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not sustainable in law. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajiv Tulsiyan vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1626, paragraph no.8 of which reads as under:- “8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that from the documents available in the case diary itself, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the case; as the owner of the company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. In the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is in any manner associated with the day to day affairs of the A.C.M. Fuels Limited, certainly the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he is the owner of the company, more so when there is no illegality in the documents associated with the said company seized by the police during the investigation of the case or otherwise also.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Rajiv Tulsiyan vs. State of Jharkhand that in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner in any manner associated with the day to day affairs of the Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited certainly, the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he is the owner of the company. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no section as 30 (ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 but Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 which reads as under:- 30. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no section as 30 (ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 but Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 which reads as under:- 30. Penalties - [(1)] Any person who,- (a) having in his possession, custody or control any property forming part of the undertaking of any coal mine referred to in the Schedule wrongfully withholds such property from the Central Government or the Government company, or (b) wrongfully obtains possession of, or retains, any property forming part of the undertaking of any coal mine specified in the Schedule or wilfully withholds or fails to furnish to the Central Government or any person specified by that Government, any document relating to such coal mine which may be in his possession, custody or control or fails to deliver to the Custodian any assets, books of account, registers or other documents in his custody relating to the coal mine in respect of which a Custodian has been appointed, or (c) wrongfully removes or destroys any property of any coal mine or prefers any claim under this Act which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or grossly inaccurate, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. [(2) Any person who engages, or causes any other person to be engaged, in winning or mining coal from the whole or part of any land in respect of which no valid prospecting licence or mining lease or sub-lease is in force, shall be punishable b[with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees.] and which relates to offences of any person having in his possession, custody or control any property forming part of the undertaking of any coal mine referred to in the schedule of the said Act or wrongfully removes or destroys any property of any coal mine or prefers any claim under the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 then there is provision for punishment but in this case as no such allegation against the petitioner is there, so even if the entire allegation made are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, there has to be the allegation that there was some stolen property but in this case there is no allegation of property having been stolen and in the absence of that the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the certificate of dealer registration kept at page no. 50 of the brief submits that dealer’s registration is in the name of Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited and even photograph appearing therein does not belong to the petitioner rather the same belongs to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Chorariya. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the certificate of dealer registration kept at page no. 50 of the brief submits that dealer’s registration is in the name of Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited and even photograph appearing therein does not belong to the petitioner rather the same belongs to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Chorariya. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any vicarious liability provided for in any of the statutes; for the offences provided in which statutes cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh and in the absence of the allegation against the petitioner of being directly responsible for the acts of the company in commission of the alleged offences, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 253 of 2020 and also the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. It is submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. was sent to the petitioner but as the petitioner was not present at the factory premises the same was delivered in his office to the staff namely U.K. Mishra and U.K. Mishra appeared in the police station on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that company having not any register or record in respect of the coal and dolomite seized and asked for two months’ time for reply to the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 11. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are concerned, in view of the principle of law reiterated in the case of Manish Kumar Shah @ Manish Kumar Sah vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra) this Court has no hesitation in holding that as no complaint in writing has been made by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government to the court competent to take cognizance hence, the cognizance in respect of the said offences are not sustainable in law. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 30 (ii) of Coal Mines Act is concerned, there is neither any Act as Coal Mines Act simpliciter nor there is any Section 30 (ii) of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 relates to the offences regarding undertaking of any coal mine, as mentioned in the schedule of the said Act but there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code are:- (i) The subject matter of offence was stolen property, (ii) An accused assisted in concealing, disposing of or making away with such property, 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of any stolen property being kept in the premises of M/s. Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation are considered to be true still the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code is not made out more so when the allegation is against the company and the petitioner is only a director and there is no provision of vicarious liability in any of the statutes for the penal provisions of which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has taken cognizance. 16. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 253 of 2020 as also the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh be quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 253 of 2020, as also the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is quashed and set aside. 18. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.