ORDER :

K. Somashekar, J.

1. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 57/2017 registered by the Nandagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, whereby these accused are seeking quashment of the Criminal Proceedings initiated against them in Crime No. 57/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 9B of Explosive Act, 1884, Sections (sic Rules) 43 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, Sections 4(1A) and 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 and so also the offence under Section 286 of IPC, 1860 which is pending before the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District.

2. Heard the learned senior Counsel Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy for the petitioners who is appearing through video conferencing and so also the Counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri Lethif B & the learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 who are present before the Court physically, for quashment of the proceedings.

3. Whereas, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the initiation of the crime against the accused by the first respondent police submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged crime arraigned as accused relating to blasting of the rocks and they have entered into an agreement between one S.L.N. Company who is having the licence for blasting of rocks and if any blast were made by the agreement holder who is responsible for any incident, but in the complaint a specific allegation made against the accused. In the report, it has observed that the Government Primary School of Huluvanahalli and Beerahalli village is located at a distance of 400 mtrs. and 500 mtrs. respectively from Chennakeshava Stone Crushers. It has also further observed from M/s. Mookambika Stone Crushers nearest lease boundary at a distance of about 300 mtrs. and 500 mtrs. respectively. In addition to the private building belongs to one Narayanappa Oblahalli is also located at a distance of 600 mtrs. from the nearest lease boundary. But the complainant registered a case against the accused with the influence of persons those who are inimical terms towards them and because of the reason the case in Crime No. 57/2017 came to be registered for the offences which reflective in the FIR said to have been recorded by Nandagudi P.S.

4. The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned senior Counsel is that the complaint has been filed against the petitioners by the complainant with an ulterior motive in order to cause some harassment to the petitioners, they were arraigned as accused in the Crime registered by the Nandagudi Police Station by suppressing all the reports relating to the allegation made in the complaint and also B report filed on the force of some sort of political factors with an only intention to cause some harassment to the accused persons without any material evidence.

5. Lastly, the senior Counsel submitted that neither the nearest dwellers nor the villagers have come forward to file a complaint against the accused but only the theory has set-up for filing a complaint against the accused before the Nandagudi Police Station only with an ulterior motive to cause some sort of harassment to the accused persons alleging vibration and also causing some harassment to the dwellers in that locality. These are all the allegations even though it has been stated in the complaint that complainant has suppressing the report relating to the allegation made in the complaint filed before the Nandagudi Police Station where the crime came to be registered against the accused persons.

6. In support of his contention the senior Counsel has taken me through the report i.e., final report submitted relating to the letter dated 23.03.2016 addressed to one Dr. H.S. Venkatesh, HOD RBEE, National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Bengaluru wherein, requested him to verify scientifically the intensity and severity of blasting in the quarr