ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for State. 2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS) for quashing for entire proceeding arising out of Nirsa P.S. Case No. 137/2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 2067 of 2017 including the order dated 19.03.2018, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 414, 420, 120(b) of the I.P.C. & 30 (2) Coal Mines Act & 4/21 MMDR Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that present F.I.R. has been lodged merely because there was route diversion of two trucks loaded with coal and was validly transporting the coal belonging to BCCL. The petitioner is the proprietor of Sanjay Udyog Private Limited, Dhanbad and registered with M/s BCCL. In the course of investigation and even after at the time of filing of charge-sheet, there was no whisper as to how the ingredients of offences as mentioned in the F.I.R. are constituted against the petitioner. The coal was found genuine and transportation of coal was also genuine. Therefore, the coal was released in favour of BCCL Company. It is also strange that in spite of no claim of the BCCL that the coal was the stolen property or in any manner obtained through theft or cheating, the charge-sheet was submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment/order of this court passed in Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Hamesh Kumar Agarwal @ Hamesh Agarwal versus State of Jharkhand Cr.M.P. No.2534 of 2021 dated 10th of April, 2024 . 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has relied upon the submission as mentioned in the counter-affidavit at Para 6 and 7 stating inter-alia that the present petitioner/transporter of coal was carrying the coal diverting the route which is in flagrant violation of terms and conditions for registration of Transporter-Contractors/Companies Clause 6 which provides that “Contractor’s trucks should ply only on specified route/roads. In case, plying of the trucks on any other route/road become necessary, due to any reason, prior approval for the same shall be taken by the contractor from the Project Officer/General Manager. In case, plying of the trucks on any other route/road become necessary, due to any reason, prior approval for the same shall be taken by the contractor from the Project Officer/General Manager. In case of violation of this provision penalty may be imposed on the contractor and/or the contract terminated.” However, the learned A.P.P. has remained silent on the query as to how offence under Sections 420, 406 of the I.P.C. is made out. It is further submitted that Annexure-2 dated 18.02.2018 clearly speaks that the seized Hywa No. JH-10-AF-9083 after loading with steam coal from Dhanbad (Dahibadi) colliery was being taken to MPL via Barbendia, Nirsa, but was carried/transporting through wrong route for smuggling of coal which was seized at Mugma station road on the basis of secret information. It is also stated that total 14 tons seized coal was released as per the order of the Hon’ble Court in favour to the Manager, Chappar Colliery, Nirsa. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the overall aspects of the case and materials brought on record, it appears that this is a simple case of diversion of route for which penalty has been prescribed under the contract between BCCL and transporter (present petitioner) and only on the basis of route diversion no case for the offence under Sections 414, 420 of the I.P.C. or Mines or Minerals Act can be entertained. In similar matter in the case of Sudhir Kumar Goyal (Supra) as relied by the petitioner, co-ordinate bench while quashing the entire criminal proceeding has considered in Para 4, the several judgments and order passed by this High Court which runs as follows:- …..In the case of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1628 of 2013 dated 20.07.2016 , wherein it was observed by the co-ordinate bench that the deviation by the truck carrying coal to a place other than its destination would not constitute any offence, hence, in that case the entire criminal proceeding was quashed. The same effect is the case of Dhiraj Kumar Swarnkar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Cr) No. 382 of 2015 dated 11.11.2016 as also in the case of Manendra Kumar Singh @ Muna Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Cr) No. 483 of 2015 dated 30.08.2017 wherein the co-ordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abhas Kumar Acksaria & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others ( Cr.W.J.C. No. 33 of 1991 [R] ), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that “deviation” by a truck carrying coal to a place other than its destination cannot be a criminal offence either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Essential Commodities Act. 6. In the instant case, the police officer has acted only on the basis of suspicion which never culminated into legal evidence for submitting charge-sheet for the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. 7. The learned trial court has also swayed upon the police report and failed to consider the entire material available on record by passing the order of cognizance. 8. In view of the above, the continuance of further proceeding of this case appears to be abuse of process of law. Therefore, further proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 19.03.2018 in connection with P.S. Case no. 137 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside and this petition is allowed. 9. Let the copy of this order be sent to concerned court for information and needful.