ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

“It is therefore humble and respectfully prayed to the Hon'ble Court may kindly quashed the impugned First Information Report dated 08.11.2023 as well charge sheet dated 17.12.2023 and quashed the entire proceeding RCT no. 59/2024 pending before JMFC Multai District Betul MP for the offence punishable under section 285, 188, of IPC and 5, 9(B), 3,4 of Explosive Act 1884, in interest of justice.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on the festival of Diwali, he filed an application for grant of license to sale fire crackers. Accordingly, an inspection report was also submitted by the competent authority thereby giving an opinion that license can be granted and ultimately on 07.11.2023, license to sale fire crackers was granted.

3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that on 07.11.2023, itself the godown of the applicant was searched and it was found that he has stored fire crackers worth Rs.70,000/-. At that time, it is alleged that the applicant was not in possession of the license. It is submitted that if the respondents are of the view that the applicant had violated the conditions of license, then the license could have been canceled under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosive Rules, 2008 but no FIR can be lodged in that regard.

4. It is further submitted that once specific provision has been made in special statute, then it is well established principle of law that a particular act provided in the statute should be performed in the same manner and not in any other manner unknown to the special act.

5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents/State. It is submitted that the Election Commission had declared the Vidhan Sabha Elections on 09.10.2023 and thereafter Collector, Betul by order dated VI.S.N.Nirva./2023/1278 dated 09.10.2018 had restrained the transportation of the Explosives Substance within the revenue limits of District of Betul and whereas, the applicant had stored the fire crackers in a room in his house.

6. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the applicant had not stored the fire crackers in his house and the said allegation made in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet is false.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant.

8. One of the primary allegations against the applicant is that he had stored fire crackers in the residential area i.e. one room of his house. Whether the said allegation is correct or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it is a matter, which is to be decided by trial Court after recording of evidence.

9. So far as the contention made by counsel for the applicant that since the special statute i.e. the Explosives Act, 1884 provides for cancellation of license in case of violation of its conditions is concerned, the same is misconceived.

10. The counsel for applicant could not point out any provision in the Act, which prohibits the application of the provisions of IPC.

11. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Rameshwar, (2009) 11 SCC 424 has held as under:- “ 48. Mr Tankha's submissions, which were echoed by Mr Jain, that the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was a complete code in itself and the remedy of the prosecuting agency lay not under the criminal process but within the ambit of Sections 74 to 76 thereof, cannot also be accepted in view of the fact that there is no bar under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, to take resort to the provisions of the general criminal law, particularly when charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are involved.”

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj N Asawani Vs. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and Others decided on 25/07/2023 in Criminal