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 and which was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case. It is next submitted that it is not necessary that, for the prosecution of the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code some other person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only ground on which the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner are photocopies of some documents which are needless to mentioned, are not admissible in evidence bring not primary evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 501 8. It is also a settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 , the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is also a settled principle of law that it is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code some other person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution is simply to prove that the property recovered is stolen property and that the accused extended help in its concealment and disposal as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajendra Nath vs. State reported in AIR 1964 SC 170 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of the brick kiln was habitually dealing in stolen coal and was assisting in concealment of stolen property. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of the brick kiln was habitually dealing in stolen coal and was assisting in concealment of stolen property. Additionally, he is owner of one of the trucks in which three tons of coke was loaded. The only ground for the claim of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is photocopies of some documents, certainly the same cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and those photocopies were not even filed in this Court, but there is some reference to such photocopies in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in criminal revision as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. be acceded to in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.