At the stage of quashing the F.I.R., premature conclusions about the absence of a case against the accused are unwarranted, and the points raised by the accused can be addressed at a later stage.

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr. Rajendra Krishna submits that identical issues are involved in both the cases, therefore they have been tagged together.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged on presumption and assumption by alleging that the unit of the petitioners was found closed and that the coal lifted from BCCL has been disposed of in black marketing. It is submitted that it has not been alleged in the F.I.R. that any amount of coal was ever recovered from the market said to have been sold by the petitioners. Learned counsel has also submitted that F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so far as the petitioners are concerned. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-7 of the present petition to submit that the coal was de-controlled as back as in the year 1992, although some control was contemplated, but in view of the fact that coal was de-controlled, there could be no illegality even if the coal was sold instead of being taken to the unit of the petitioners. Learned counsel has also referred to coal supply agreement as contained in Annexure-5/1 which is dated 15th November, 2008 and he submits that after making due enquiry in connection with the unit of the petitioners, the fuel supply agreement has been entered into between Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and the petitioner company and therefore it cannot be said that the unit of the petitioners is non-existing.

3. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this court in the case of the petitioners being W.P. (C) No. 688 of 2004 to submit that the officers of the BCCL on 20.09.2002 had found that the unit of the petitioners was in running condition. Learned counsel submits that merely because some of the villagers on the spot had stated that unit of the petitioners is not running for a number of years, the same cannot be a basis for lodging an F.I.R. Learned counsel submits that entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and therefore the entire case against the petitioners is fit to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Mr. V.S. Sahay has opposed the prayer and submitted that investigation of the case is not yet over and therefore it is premature to say that no case is made out against the petitioners. By referring to the F.I.R. he submits that F.I.R. by itself is not the encyclopaedia of all the allegations and therefore on the face of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that no case at all is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel has further referred to para 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit to submit that there is enough material against the petitioners which has come up during investigation and in the name of closed factory the petitioners have been lifting linkage quota for black marketing and unit of the petitioners was found closed when informant had visited the spot. Learned counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the principle of law which has been laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in (1992) Supp(1) SCC 335 no interference is called for by quashing the F.I.R. itself. He also submits that the points which have been raised by the petitioners at best can be taken at appropriate stage before the learned court below once the investigation is over and charge sheet, if any, is submitted by the opposite party.

5. Arguments concluded.

6. Post these cases for judgment on 12.02.2021.