IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of relevant sections of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the parameters of quashing of the FIR were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the FIR in connection with Danguaposi Railway P.S. Case No.10 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No.100 of 2008 registered for the offence under sections 420, 468, 120B of the I.P.C and sections 4, 21, 23 and 23/B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, pending before learned Railway Magistrate (Chakradharpur) at Chaibasa.

3. The FIR was registered alleging there in that informant along with Mines Inspector in course of verification of iron ore came to know that one M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. has dispatched certain quantity of iron ore from Danguaposi Railway siding and while informant inquired into the same M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. has denied that they have dispatched any quantity of iron ore from Danguaposi Railway Siding. It is also stated that M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. has lodged a case as Nawamundi P.S.Case No.57 of 2008 against unknown persons. It is alleged that in between July 2007 to Sept. 2007 total quantity of 12,850.350 MT iron ore was dispatched. The valve of iron ore was Rs.3.21 crore. It is further alleged that aforesaid quantity of iron ore was dispatched without any transit challan and govt. has sustained huge loss of royalty and on enquiry from station manager it is revealed that in the placement of inland name of M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. and M/s Sachivinam Exports Pvt. Ltd. was mentioned and name of applicant Maa Chhinnamastika Sponge Iron Ltd. Hence this case.

4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the order dated 3.3.2011 the entire criminal proceeding was stayed. He submits that later on, the petitioners have filed anticipatory bail application which was withdrawn on the ground that the interim protection was provided to the petitioners. By way of inviting attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State, Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nothing has come against these petitioners and unnecessarily the petitioners have been implicated in this case. By way of inviting attention of the Court to Annexure-‘B’ and ‘C’ annexed with the counter affidavit dated 18.4.2011, he submits that by Annexure-‘B’ M/s Anindita Traders and Investment Ltd. was addressed and annexure-‘D’ also suggest that M/s Anindita Trades and Investment Ltd. was involved in transporting of the iron ore however the petitioners have unnecessarily been made accused in the petition. On this ground, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. He further submits that since till then the investigation has not been completed, which is against the mandate of section under section 173 Cr.P.C. The case of quashing is made out. He refers to section 173 Cr.P.C and submits that the said section provides that at the earliest the investigation is required to be completed and to buttress his argument he relied in the case of ”Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra” reported in AIR 2008 SC 3077. He further submits that when the special Act is there in light of section 4, 21, 23, the case can only be maintained under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and section 22 of the said Act speaks of only filing of the complaint whereas in the present case the FIR is registered. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that since there is delay in investigation however now the investigation is at the verge of completion. He submits that delay occurred due to stay of the proceeding by this Court by order dated 3.3.2011. He submits that the petitio