By the Court:- 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2299 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for having committed offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act . 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the General Manager of C.V. Area, Laikdih, Dhanbad, petitioner no.2 being the Project Officer of the said area, petitioner no.3 being the Manager, Dihibari Colliery and the petitioner no.4 being the Director Technical (P&D) BCCL along with the co- accused persons were responsible for illegal mining of coal from Jamdehi Forest. The patrolling team of the forest officials saw some labourers indulging in loading of coal in a Hywa Truck the registration number of which has been mentioned in the report. On seeing the forest officials, the persons indulging in loading of coal fled away. The truck was seized by the forest officials. The forest officials could identify four persons. On 12.05.2016, the forest officials and the officers of the BCCL went to the place of occurrence for joint investigation and it was found that 4.15 acres of land has been encroached and illegal mining is being done and the forest has been destroyed. It was also alleged that within the forest area, over burden dump and permanent house has been constructed and by illegal mining, the nature of the forest land has been changed. It was further alleged that earlier also, the management of BCCL was also indulging in illegal mining in the forest land. On being noticed by the complainant –Forest Range Officer, the petitioner no.1, 2 & 3 appeared and submitted their explanation that mining was going on in the area before the nationalization of the coal mines. On the basis of the prosecution report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act vide order dated 05.12.2016 in Complaint Case No. 2299 of 2016. 4. On the basis of the prosecution report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act vide order dated 05.12.2016 in Complaint Case No. 2299 of 2016. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ramjee Kumar Singh @ Ramji Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 4273 of 2018 dated 20.09.2024 that in that case, this Court reiterated the settled principle of law that the officers of a company cannot be held criminally liable for the offence committed by the company unless they have any specific role played in commission of such offence. It is then submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners, who are the high officers of the BCCL that they themselves indulged in illegal mining; rather the labourers who were indulging in illegal mining as per the prosecution report itself were identified but they were not the petitioners, hence otherwise also no offence is made out against the petitioners. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Polavarapu Malikharjuna Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1911 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024 and submits that in that case also, when in the facts of that case, the petitioner of that case was implicated in that case, only because he is the CMD of Central Coalfields Limited; even though no overt act was attributed to him and the Central Coalfields Limited itself had not been arrayed as an accused in that case, this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and another connected case , reported in (2024) SCC Online Jhar 4015 and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has quashed the restraint order passed by the State of Jharkhand under the signature of the Regional Forest Officer, Urban, Technical Region, Dhanbad, whereby the Bharat Coking Coal Limited was directed to stop its mining operation over the area of 141.5 acres of land involved in that case. Therefore, it is submitted that otherwise also, no case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that since at the behest of the petitioners, encroachment was done and illegal mining was also carried out, the petitioners are squarely responsible for encroachment of the forest land. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the officers of a company cannot be held criminally liable for the offence committed by the company unless they have played any specific role in commission of such offence. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, even going by the prosecution report itself, some labourers were involved in the alleged illegal mining of coal from the forest area, and the complainant claims to identify four of them, but they were none of the petitioners. There is no allegation that the petitioners were the persons who indulged in mining inside the forest area. There is no allegation that the petitioners were the persons who indulged in mining inside the forest area. The very fact that a joint inspection was made by the officers of the Forest Department and the Officers of the BCCL of the place of occurrence goes to show that BCCL is claiming that the land in question was leased out by the private parties in favour of Bengal Coal Company and after coming into effect of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 all the lands where mining operations were carried out were vested with the Central Government and for the aforesaid purpose, the nodal company has been constituted in the name and style of Coal India Limited and depending upon the territory, the subsidiary companies have also been constituted one of which is Bharat Coking Coal Limited, who was the petitioner of the said W.P.(C) No.5423 of 2016, the judgment of which case was reported in (2024) SCC Online Jhar 4015 as already indicated above, and by the judgement in which writ petition the restraint order passed by the state government against the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, has been quashed by the Division Bench of this court, in respect of the place of occurrence land of this case. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners without any specific allegation against them of indulging in any act or omission in their present capacity being alleged, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2299 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for having committed offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2299 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for having committed offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act , is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.