The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the petitioner, establishing sufficient evidence of involvement in illegal explosive supply, and clarified the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Instant Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner, seeking to quash FIR No.106/2012 registered at Police Station Chaupanki, District Alwar for offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 336 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

2. Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation on the impugned FIR has been carried out and thereafter, charge-sheet against other accused persons namely Sahoon, Pramod Kumar Singh, Saddam, Sitaram and Mr. Yakub have been filed but no incriminating evidence against the petitioner has been found, except that co-accused Mr. Sahoon made statements that the explosive material of Ammonium Nitrate was supplied by the petitioner, however investigation against petitioner has been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It has been contended that even if case of prosecution against the petitioner is taken as true, the recovered explosive substances i.e. Ammonium Nitrate does not fall in the category of explosive substances and not required any license for its storage or sale. It is only after promulgation of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 (for short "Rules of 2012") w.e.f. 11.07.2012, it has been held necessary to obtain a license for storage, possession or sale and use of Ammonium Nitrate but a grace period of 6 to 18 months is provided under Rule 5 to obtain the license. Therefore, as per Rules 2012, no case against the petitioner is make out before expiry of six months from the date of launching the Rules i.e. 11.07.2012, hence the involvement of petitioner in the impugned FIR, registered on 30.12.2012 is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and it is prima facie clear from investigation that, his involvement in the present FIR is wholly uncalled for, investigation against petitioner has been kept pending, therefore, the FIR as well as pending investigation against the petitioner deserves to be quashed to prevent abuse of process or otherwise for ends of justice.

4. In counter, learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record, the progress report of investigation dated 08.05.2023 and pointed out that evidence against petitioner has been collected during course of investigation in the impugned FIR that recovered explosive substances were supplied by the petitioner-Mr. Jakaria Khan through his driver Mr. Nazeer in the vehicle TATA 407; driver of petitioner namely Mr. Nazeer received sale amount from accused Sahoon. It has revealed that explosive substances were supplied in the name of M/s Mewat Enterprises, Tawdu stating that he has license but in fact the address of M/s Mewat Enterprises was found fake and petitioner does not possess any license. It has revealed in the investigation that another FIR No.88/2013 at Police Station Tawdu was registered against Mr. Nazeer, driver of the petitioner while carrying explosive substances in vehicle TATA 407. Co-accused Sahoon has also divulged information under Section 27 of Evidence Act, to supply portion of explosive substances, recovered from two shops in the Raid on 30.12.2012 by the petitioner.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it has come on record that explosive substances without having any license, were sold and supplied by the petitioner to accused Sahoon, Azmat and Kamal for using the same, for blasting in the Aravalli Hills and for the purpose of illegal mining of stones from the Aravalli Hills. Thus, criminal case for offence under Sections, 4, 5,6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Explosive Act, 1884 r/w Rule 4 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 has been held proved against the petitioner in the investigation; petitioner is on anticipatory bail and charge-sheet would be filed after obtain