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 and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of First Information Report bearing Mandu P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 in which after submission of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh vide order dated 04.12.2020 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, and 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of a truck which was apprehended by police loaded with steam coal which was taken to be sold in Varanasi instead of delivering it to Om Coke Industries Bharechnagar, Sandi Ramgarh for which transport challan and invoice challan had been issued. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in the business of preparing coke and no role has been attributed to the petitioner in the entire charge sheet. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still, no offence either of cheating or forgery for the purpose of cheating or criminal conspiracy is made out against the petitioner and at best it will amount to attempt of misappropriating the steam coal. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 11 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, the Sub-Inspector of police is not authorized to seize any vehicle for transporting minerals. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any offence of cheating is made out in the facts of the case nor the offence of forgery is made out against the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any offence of cheating is made out in the facts of the case nor the offence of forgery is made out against the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 2534 of 2021 dated 10.04.2024, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of that case, it was observed by this court that, in order to constitute the offence of cheating, it has to be proved that the accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause wrongful loss to the person cheated and whose interest the offender is bound to protect, hence, this Court held that the offence punishable under Section 418 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 1628 of 2013 dated 20.07.2016, wherein the coordinate Bench held that in case of deviation made by a vehicle, the same cannot be termed as a criminal offence. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that deviation will not give rise to any of the offences involved in this case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph no. 49 of the case diary, the statement of the computer operator-Prem Prakash has been mentioned and he has categorically stated that the document relating to coal loaded in a truck bearing no. JH-02-AR-6640 is genuine document and the said document was prepared as per his knowledge hence, it is submitted that as the document was found to be genuine, the offence of forgery is also not made out and in the absence of any offence of forgery the offence punishable under Section 468, 469 or 471 of Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly or fraudulently inducing anybody to part with any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the offence punishable under Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 is concerned, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner wrongfully withheld any property in his possession, custody or control from the Central Government or the State Government company nor there being any allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully obtaining possession or retaining any property and also in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully removing or destroying any property of any coal mine, the offence punishable under Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 is not made out. It is therefore submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that since the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition is covered by the judgment of coordinate Benches as referred to above, hence, it is submitted that the State has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 49 of the case diary, the witness-Prem Prakash, who was the computer operator in Toppo Colliery, Project of Ramgarh has verified the genuineness of the documents being carried by the driver of the truck in question, which appears to be genuine document and in the absence of any contrary material or allegation, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence of forgery is not made out even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true and in the absence of any forgery having been committed by the petitioner or anyone else, none of the offence punishable under Sections 468 and 469 of Indian Penal Code is made out. 9. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly or fraudulently inducing anybody to part with any property. Under such circumstances, the offence punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is also pertinent to mention here that Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 has since been repealed vide the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017, Act 4 of 2018 with effect from 05.01.2018. So, no cognizance could have been taken by the trial court in respect of the said offence. 10. Because of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which FIR has been registered, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offences having been taken is made out against the petitioner, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of the law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of First Information Report bearing Mandu P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2020 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of First Information Report bearing Mandu P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2020 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.