IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. M.P. No. 155 of 2015
                                  ---
          John Hansda, Son of late Silesh Hansda, Resident of Village-Saharkol,
          P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur(T), District-Pakur.   .....Petitioner
                                            Versus
          1.    The State of Jharkhand.
          2.    Suresh Paswan, Son of Subodh Paswan, Regional Officer,
                Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, at Nagar Prasashan
                Bhawan, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
                having its Regional Office at Tower Chowk, Ashram Road,
                Dudhani, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka(T), District-Dumka.
                                                 ...     Opposite Parties
                                            ---
          CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                             ---
           For the Petitioner         : Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate
           For the State              : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
                                      ---
06/13.07.2016

Heard the parties.

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with O.C.R. Case No. 37 of 2014 including the order dated 24.03.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act as also under Sections 38/44 of Water ( (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already obtained consent to operate the Crusher Machine from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and in fact the complaint petition itself reveals the exact period with respect to alleged running of Crusher Machine by the petitioner.

It has further been submitted that since the complaint petition itself is vague and in view of the permission obtained from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, criminal proceeding as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It appears from the complaint petition that prior to grant of "No Objection Certificate" from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the petitioner was running the Crusher Machine. Although no specific date has been mentioned in the complaint petition but the same cannot by any stretch of imagination be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. The petitioner was running the Crusher Machine, for which he was repeatedly warned by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and ultimately the Board had no option but to -2- institute a complaint petition against the petitioner. The communication made by the Board to the petitioner itself reveals that prior to "No Objection Certificate" granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was indeed running the Crusher Machine illegally without having any Sanction/"No Objection Certificate"/Consent to operate from the Board.

Since a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and this application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points at appropriate stage.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/