IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. M.P. No. 592 of 2006
            Anup Kedia ...          ...    ...      ...     ...      ...      Petitioner
                                  Versus
            State of Jharkhand and another    ...     ...      ...      Opp. Parties
                                ------
            CORAM:         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
                                ------
            For the Petitioner:        Mr. Binod Poddar
            For the Opp. Parties:      M/s. M.B. Lal, A.K. Pandey
                                ------
      Reserved on: 04.2.2010              Pronounced on: 10th February, 2010

M. Y. Eqbal, J.    By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has

            prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against him in
            Gua PS Case No.15 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No.119 of 2006
            registered under Sections 147///120-B I.P.C. and under Sections
            4/ of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
            1957 and under Sections 37/// of the Air (Prevention and
            Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner has also prayed for
            quashing the First Information Report so far petitioner is concerned in
            the aforesaid case.
            2.     It appears that the aforesaid case was registered on the basis of
            written report jointly submitted by three persons, namely, Junior
            Environment Engineer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board,
            Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Circle Officer, Noamundi and District Mining
            Officer, Chaibasa to the Officer-in-Charga, Barajamda Out Post.
            According to the F.I.R., on 26.6.2006, the District Level Task Force
            conducted raid at the premises of seven Iron Ore Crushing units
            situated at Mauza Parambaljodi, Barajamda in order to prevent illegal
            mining, transportation, crushing and dumping of minerals. It is alleged
            that during the said raid, sanction and no-objection of the Jharkhand
            State Pollution Control Board were examined, but some of them could
            not produce the documents. Eighteen persons found working at seven
            crushers were arrested by the order of Junior Environment Engineer,
            Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and
            were handed over to the Officer-in-Charge, Barajamda Police Station.
            Various other allegations have been made in the First Information
            Report.
            3.     Mr. Binod Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
            first submitted that on the basis of allegations made in the F.I.R., no
                                          2


           case is made out so far petitioner is concerned for the offence alleged to
           have been committed by him. Learned counsel submitted that there is
           no allegation against the petitioner under Sections 147, , , 120-B
           I.P.C. and under Section 4/ of the Mines and Minerals (Development
           and Regulation) Act and also under the Prevention of Control of
           Pollution Act. Any allegation made against the petitioner is absurd and
           baseless because and the informants themselves have categorically
           admitted and stated in the written report attached with the F.I.R. that
           petitioner's crushers were under construction. Learned counsel lastly
           submitted that the question of obtaining permission from the
           competent authority for running the crushers will arise only after the
           construction of the plant, installation of machines and starting
           production.
           4.     Undisputedly, the petitioner has been constructing a plant and
           for that purpose, petitioner himself stated that he has obtained no-
           objection certificate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
           Act by the Pollution Control Board on the basis of application dated
           10.6.2005

. No-objection under different provisions was obtained by the petitioner and the period of such no-objection stood expired which is evident from the documents annexed with the application.

5. Be that as it may, existence of plant which is alleged to be under construction is not undisputed. The question whether such permission or no-objection is to be obtained before or prior to commence of the activities are not to be considered at this stage. It is well settled that if the allegations made in the First Information Report constitute an offence, then in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., F.I.R. cannot be quashed. The defence which the petitioner has taken in this application can be looked into and considered by the Court below at the time of framing of charge and not for the purpose of quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the First Information Report.

6. After having given my anxious consideration in the matter, I do not find any justification in quashing the First Information Report and the criminal proceeding. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

( M.Y.Eqbal,J.) Manoj/2Cps./AFR