JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s) for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Chirkunda (Panchet O.P.) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 135-1(a) 137 of Indian Electricity (Amended) Act, 2003 against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner Ajeet Kumar Saw of W.P.Cr. No.72 of 2024 was running a factory in the name and style of Vidhata Poly Products in partnership with two other persons and has committed theft of electricity by drawing electric energy from the connection of DVC causing loss of Rs.20 lakhs to the DVC. 4. The allegation against the Nogan Gorai @ Nagen Chandra Gorai of W.P.Cr. No.65 of 2024 is that Nogan Gorai @ Nagen Chandra Gorai is running a factory in the name and style of Gorai Industries and by illegally drawing electric energy from DVC connection has caused a loss of Rs.20 Lakhs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No.72 of 2024 submits by drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-3, Page-28 of the brief that the Superintending Engineer (Electricity) PHPS Damodar Valley Corporation, Panchet, has intimated to the officer-in-charge of Panchet Police Outpost that in the FIR, inadvertently, the name of the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No.72 of 2024 namely Ajit Kumar Saw has wrongly been mentioned as one of the partners running the said Vidhata Poly Products, but in fact the owner of the same Vidhata Poly Products is Gokul Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that as undisputedly, the petitioner is not the owner of M/s Vidhata Poly Products nor any way associated with the same, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding in connection with Chirkunda (Panchet OP) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 amounts to abuse of process of law. 7. It is next submitted that the co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 31.10.2023 in W.P.Cr. No.535 of 2023 has quashed the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner of that case namely Chand Mandal alias Chandra Shekhar Mondal who was also named in the FIR stated to be one of the partners of the said Vidhata Poly Products. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No.535 of 2023 has quashed the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner of that case namely Chand Mandal alias Chandra Shekhar Mondal who was also named in the FIR stated to be one of the partners of the said Vidhata Poly Products. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No.65 of 2024 submits by drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-5, page-45 of the writ petition which is the copy of the GST Registration Certificate issued by the concerned department of Government of India that therein it has categorically been mentioned that Gorai Industries is proprietorship industry situated at Zero Point, Panchet and Ram Krishna Gorai is the owner of the said industry. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No.65 of 2024 that though the respondents have filed a counter affidavit but they have not questioned the genuineness of Annexure-5, hence, as undisputedly Ram Krishna Gorai is the owner of Gorai Industries, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner Nogan Gorai @ Nagen Chandra Gorai on the allegation that he is owner of the Gorai Industries will certainly amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of Chirkunda (Panchet O.P.) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 be also quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner only. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the W.P.Cr. No. 72 of 2024 is concerned, they have no serious objection, as the concerned officer of the respondent no.5 itself has intimated to the police that Ajeet Kumar Saw is not the owner of the said Vidhata Poly Products, but so far as the W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that though the respondents do not dispute that the Ram Krishna Gorai is the owner of the Gorai Industries but the petitioner being the father of the owner of Gorai Industries was also involved in commission of theft of electric energy causing loss to the respondent no.5, hence, it is submitted that W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 being without any merit, be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the W.P.Cr. No. 72 of 2024 is concerned, it is the admitted case of the informant itself as has been communicated to the officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Outpost, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-3 that the writ petitioner Ajeet Kumar Saw is not the owner of the said Vidhata Poly Products. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of criminal proceeding in connection with Chirkunda (Panchet OP) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 against the writ petitioner Ajeet Kumar Saw, will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chirkunda (Panchet OP) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022, is quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner of W.P.Cr.No. 72 of 2024. 12. So far as the W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 is concerned, the undisputed facts remains that the GST registration of Gorai Industries in no uncertain manner indicates that Rama Krishna Gorai is proprietor of the Gorai Industries situated at Zero Point, Panchet which is alleged to have stolen electric energy of DVC causing loss to the DVC. There is no allegation against the petitioner Nogan Gorai @ Nagen Chandra Gorai of W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 that he himself was involved in an act, deeds and things; for alleged theft of electric energy. Nogan Gorai @ Nagen Chandra Gorai has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR only on the allegation that he is the owner of the Gorai Industries. In view of the said Annexure-5, the veracity of which is not even challenged by the informant or the respondent no.5, this Court has no hesitation in holding that as that is a document of unimpeachable character, which shows that Rama Krishna Gorai is the owner of the Gorai Industries. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that if certain documents of sterling quality are brought on record, the Courts cannot turn blind eye to the same as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of B. Jagdish Vs. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that if certain documents of sterling quality are brought on record, the Courts cannot turn blind eye to the same as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of B. Jagdish Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2009) 1 SCC 681 . So continuation of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chirkunda (Panchet OP) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 against the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No.65 of 2024 on the allegation that he is the owner of Gorai Industries will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chirkunda (Panchet OP) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 against the petitioner, is to be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 as well. 13. In view of discussions made above, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chirkunda (Panchet OP) P.S. Case No.239 of 2022 against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No. 72 of 2024 namely Ajeet Kumar Saw and the petitioner of W.P.Cr. No. 65 of 2024 namely Nogan Gorai @ Nagen Chandra Gorai. 14. It is made clear that the police during the investigation of the case may proceed against the owner of Gorai Industries namely Rama Krishna Gorai. 15. These writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.