JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 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 ther prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.72 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1650 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 /120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 15 of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 21.04.2018 a raid was conducted by the informant, who was the Program Officer-cum- Assistant Executive Officer of the Jharia Circle of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, along with others in the premises of Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Limited and 101 bags (sacks) containing carry bags were seized. On the basis of the written report of the informant, police registered Jharia P.S. Case No.72 of 2018 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 /120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 15 of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and on the basis of the same, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 19.08.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted, by drawing attention of this Court to the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 of this petition that Rule 4(1)(c) thereof, prohibits use of carry bag made out of virgin or recycled plastic, which shall not be less than fifty microns in thickness. It is next submitted that it has not been mentioned either in the FIR or in the seizure list, as to of which material the seized carry bags were made of and what was its thickness. It is next submitted that it has not been mentioned either in the FIR or in the seizure list, as to of which material the seized carry bags were made of and what was its thickness. It is next submitted, by drawing attention of this Court to Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 that the same bars any court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 except on a complaint made by the Central Government or the Authority or the Officer authorized in this behalf by the Government or Adjudicating Officer or any officer authorized by him in this behalf or any person who has given notice not less than 60 days in the manner prescribed of, the alleged offence, of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the Officer authorized. It is next submitted that no such complaint has been made to the Court concerned rather the information was submitted to the police and an FIR has been lodged, so the cognizance so far as the same relates to the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is not sustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence are not made out as there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving anybody or dishonestly inducing anybody deceived by him, to part with any property. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the very fact that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences itself goes to show that the same were made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. It is next submitted that the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken is made out. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under:- 19.Cognizance of offences- No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by- (a) the Central Government or any authority or officer authorized in this behalf by that Government: or (aa) adjudicating officer or any officer authorized by him in this behalf. (b) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central Government or the authority or officer authorized as aforesaid. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay and allied cases , reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772 , para -70 of which reads as under:- “70. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorised under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorised officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist the Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist the Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person is sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitutes an offence under the Penal Code.” (Emphasis supplied) in a similar provision to Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, held that a police officer cannot insist the Magistrate for taking cognizance under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act on the basis of records submitted by police alleging the contravention of the said act. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, a plain reading of Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 bars any court from taking cognizance of any offences punishable under the provisions of Environment Protection Act, 1986 except on a complaint made by the person or authorities mentioned therein, as already indicated in the foregoing paragraph of this judgement. Certainly, in view of the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay and allied cases (Supra), the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has committed a grave error in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, on the basis of the report submitted by the police opened investigation of the case based on the First Information Report. More so, when there is no material to suggest as to what was the thickness of the allegedly seized carry bags, the prohibition was made under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 or the rules or orders or directions issued thereunder; as also in the absence of any information as to the material of which such seized carry bags were made of. 10. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are as under:- (A). Deceit, i.e. to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and (B) inducing the person deceived to part with property. as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 . 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody with any fraudulent or dishonest misrepresentation nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of inducing any person so deceived to part with any property. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out even with the aid of Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 13. In view of the discussions made above as the offence punishable under Section 420 /120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true and the cognizance of the offence under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is bad in law as the cognizance has been taken without the complaint filed by the person/authorities concerned as provided in Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the First Information Report arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.72 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1650 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, the First Information Report arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.72 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1650 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.