Point of Law: Interpretation of vaioud relevant provisions of Code under Chapter XIV and of principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of 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 Court or otherwise to secure 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.

ORDER :

1. The five petitioners herein seek quashment of FIR No. 125/2020 registered against them at Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur and the Criminal Case No. 245/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, on the following factual backdrop:

1.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of registered proprietorship firm named as M/s Shree Mangal and is involved in coal trading both interstate as well as intra-state and petitioners No. 2 to 5 are drivers of the trucks owned by the firm of petitioner No. 1.

1.2. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he had purchased coal from SECL through Spot-e-Auction and on 09.07.2020, he had obtained Delivery Order bearing No. 072020/5601/02383 for transportation of 3000 tons of coal and the areas where he was entitled to take the coal were Bilha, Hardi and Dhanwar.

1.3. On 21.08.2020, four trucks owned by petitioner No. 1 and driven by petitioners No. 2 to 5, transporting the coal purchased by petitioner No. 1 from SECL through Spot-e-Auction pursuant to Delivery Order No. 072020/5601/02383 obtained by him, were seized by the respondent/police alleging that the trucks were illegally carrying coal to Chandasi Mandi, Uttar Pradesh and offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 were registered against the petitioners.

2. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that petitioner No. 1 had legally purchased coal from SECL through Spot-e-Auction and on 09.07.2020, he had also obtained Delivery Order No. 072020/5601/02383 from SECL for transporting the coal to Bilha, Hardi and Dhanwar and the same was also duly informed by the SECL to the S.H.O. vide the document filed at Page 77 of the writ petition which is also a part of the charge-sheet, as such, no offence under Section 420 and 420B of IPC is made out against the petitioners. He would further submit that no cognizance can be taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 on the basis of the police report as in view of the provisions contained under Section 22 of the Act of 1957, only the Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to take cognizance of the said offence in respect of violation of various provisions of the Act of 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 496 and submit that the FIR registered against the petitioners as well as the subsequent criminal case pending against them deserves to be quashed.

3. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would submit that it is not a case of quashing the charges and charge-sheet as prima facie on behalf of petitioner No. 1, petitioners No. 2 to 5 were trying to take coal in the trucks owned by petitioner No. 1 to Chandasi Mandi, Uttar Pradesh for illegal purpose whereas the coal ought to have been used in the State of Chhattisgarh as per the Delivery Order dated 09.07.2020 issued by SECL, as such, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. At the outset, it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 in which Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the principle of law for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or inherent power u