Sandeep Kumar, J. – This application has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. vide Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 11 of 2018 registered for the offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972.

2. The petitioner is a leasee, for extracting minor minerals of stones for 5.66 hectare, in Block No.11, Khata No.4256 at village - Badhokora, District- Nawada being the successful bidder. Thereafter, the petitioner started the work in the month of April, 2017 after completing the requisite formalities and obtaining permission from the competent authority. It is alleged that an inspection was made at different projects including the project of the petitioner and during inspection it was found that some environmental clearance as well as terms and conditions of the mining lease/license have been violated. Accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the entire prosecution vague allegation has been made against the petitioner and on the basis of vague allegation the petitioner cannot be prosecuted.

4. In support of above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 and in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to controvert the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the aforesaid decisions on which the petitioner relies upon.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

7. From perusal of the letter dated 13.01.2018 of the Assistant Director, Mines, District- Nawada, on the basis of which the present F.I.R. has been lodged, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is vague and it is only in three line. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under: –

^^mDr iRFkj [kuu iV~Vksa ds fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ,lbZvkbZ,, fcgkj }kjk fuxZr i;kZof.kZd Lohd`fr 'krksZ dk mYy?kau ik;k x;k] lkFk gh fcgkj y?kq [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 1972 ds fu;e 21¼1½ dk Hkh mYy?kau gSA**

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) has held in paragraph no.102 as under: –

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter 14 and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such a power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case again the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where t