Karnataka High Court
Naveenkumar Andaneppa Wali vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3191
CRL.P No. 100960 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100960 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEENKUMAR ANDANEPPA WALI
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
WALI BUILDING, BAGALKOT-587101.
2. VIJAYMAHTESH
S/O. SHIVAYOGI KANKANAMELI
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD BAGALKOT, TQ. BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.
3. MAHAMED BASHASAB MUDDEBIHAL
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. NAVANAGAR, TQ. BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by B
AND:
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK Location: HIGH
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Date: 2025.02.20
16:40:14 +0530 THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR CRIME
NO.80/2021 DATED 30.04.2021 REGISTERED BY HANAGAL
P.S.AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC. 5 OF EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 AND U/S 9B OF
EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1884 WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER, ON
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3191
CRL.P No. 100960 of 2022
THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL WITH
RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned AGA for the state.
2. The petition challenges the registration of an FIR for offences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884. The FIR was filed after a raid on a stone quarry, where accused No. 1 (owner of the quarry) and others were found attempting a blasting operation without a necessary licence.
3. The relevant sections of the Explosives Acts deal with licensing and punishment for contraventions. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act punishes making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, while Section 9B of the Explosives Act covers violations related to the manufacture, possession, use, or transport of explosives without a valid licence.
4. The petitioner/accused No. 3 had a valid licence from the Chief Controller of Explosives in Mangalore to carry out blasting operations in the quarry, which was valid until 31.09.2026. Therefore, the allegation of attempting blasting operations without a licence is baseless.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in an earlier case (Crl.P.No. 200304/2024) had ruled that if a police officer inspects premises under the Explosive Rules, the officer is required to report the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3191 CRL.P No. 100960 of 2022 inspection to the district authority under Rule 128(2). In this case, the police inspector did not report the inspection, which was a procedural failure.
6. As the state has not disputed the validity of the petitioner's licence, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of legal process. As a result, the petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR in crime No.80/2021 registered by Hangal Police Station is quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82