High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash proceedings by appreciating accused's defence, veracity of photocopy evidence or conducting mini-trial; for Section 414 IPC, thief's conviction not required if stolen property and assistance in concealment proved.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Nirsa (Kalubathan) P.S. Case No.265 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.3353 of 2016 in which after investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 413, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 30(ii) of Bihar Coal Mines Act , Section 4 /21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 33(1-B) of Indian Forest Act and basing upon the same,the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the said offences.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of the brick kiln in the name and style of Jai Maa Tara Industries in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons was involved in assisting and concealment of stolen property and habitually dealing with stolen properties by illegally extracting coal by quarrying coal from protected forest area.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has not yet been framed by the trial court in this case. It is next submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner was also seized by the police. It is next submitted that the truck of the petitioner bearing registration no. NL-02-N-1658 loaded three tons of coke along with other trucks were seized without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the documents pertaining to the coal. It is next submitted that since stolen property is a necessary ingredient to prosecute a person for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, but as there is no stolen property in this case, hence, the prosecution has no legs to stand.

5. Drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.152 of 2017, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad relying upon the photocopies of some documents has come to the conclusion that such documents cannot be said to be forged and passed an order for release of the coal in favour of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that it is a settled principle of law that the Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot take into consideration of the defence of the accused persons. It is next submitted that from the said revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, it is crystal clear that the Magistrate when called for a report from the police, the police has in no uncertain manner stood its ground that the documents of the petitioner are not genuine, so at best, it could be a defence for the petitioner to take the plea that the documents of the coal loaded in a particular truck which is owned by the petitioner to be true, but even then he will not be absolved of the entire allegations because the undisputed facts remains that the allegation against the petitioner is not only that he is the owner of the truck; rather he is the owner of the brick kiln in which he is habitually dealing with stolen property