JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent- State in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of Rajrappa P.S. Case No.171 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2), 317 (2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 , Section 04/21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and Rule 09/13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage)Rules, 2017 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the informant- the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh found two Hywa vehicles being loaded with sand in excess of the amount of sand mentioned in the relevant challan. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of M/s. Aditya Enterprises from which the co-accused purchased sand, which was transported with some additional sand, in excess of the quantity of sand mentioned in the relevant challan. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner sold the sand as mentioned in the challan and after the vehicles left the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner can no way be held responsible for the excess sand, found loaded in the said vehicle. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner, by genuine transaction, has sold respectively 400 cft and 500 cft of sand to M/s. Mahadev Enterprises by two separate challans. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the ownership of the Hywa vehicle nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of being the owner of the Hywa vehicles concerned. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed. 5. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of M/s Aditya Enterprises which sold 400 cft and 500 cft of sand respectively; which was to be carried by two vehicles, which were seized by the District Mining Officer. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has any connection with the ownership of the vehicles which were carrying the sand. There is also no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner loaded more sand than the quantity of sand mentioned in the challan; allegedly found loaded in the Hywa vehicles. 6. So far as the offence punishable under Section 303 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the same relates to punishment for commission of theft. There is no allegation that any commission of theft of sand has been committed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations, as made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section303 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 317 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is concerned, the same provides punishment for a person dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen property. Now, as already discussed above, in the absence of any theft having been committed, the question of any stolen property being retained or received by the petitioner does not arise. There is no allegation that the sand which the petitioner sold to the vehicle owners was stolen rather the documents relating to the sand sold by the petitioner were found to be genuine and the same was also uploaded in the JIMMS Portal. There is no allegation that the sand which the petitioner sold to the vehicle owners was stolen rather the documents relating to the sand sold by the petitioner were found to be genuine and the same was also uploaded in the JIMMS Portal. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations, as made against the petitioner, are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 317 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioner. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is concerned, Section 4 of the said Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 envisages that prospecting or mining operation has to be made under license or lease only and prohibits reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit, license or mining lease granted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 provides for penalty and violation of Section 4 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operation being carried out by the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of any permit, license or mining lease. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered that even if the entire allegations, as made against the petitioner, are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not made out against the petitioner. 10. So, far as the offence punishable under Rule 9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 is concerned, the same prohibits transport, removal or carrying away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transport challan duly generated through the JIMMS. 11. 10. So, far as the offence punishable under Rule 9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 is concerned, the same prohibits transport, removal or carrying away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transport challan duly generated through the JIMMS. 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of transporting or removing or carrying away any mineral rather the same is against the owners of the vehicles so, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations, as made against the petitioner, are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Rule 9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage)Rules, 2017 is not made out against the petitioner. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 is concerned, the same provides for penalty for any person who will contravene the provision of the said rules, or buys or sells or stores minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealer’s registration. 13. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner sold the certain amount of sand to Mahadev Enterprises as mentioned in the transport challan. There is no dispute that the transport challans were genuine. 14. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of contravening any of the provisions of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, the offence punishable under Rule 13 of the said Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 is not made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations, as made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., are considered to be true in their entirety. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since no offence is made out against the petitioner even if the contents of the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since no offence is made out against the petitioner even if the contents of the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of Rajrappa P.S. Case No.171 of 2024 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above. 16. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding of Rajrappa P.S. Case No.171 of 2024 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Ramgarh, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above. 17. In the result, this Writ Petition (Cr.) stands allowed.