Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C.No.21161/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21st OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21161 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AMIT BHARGAVA S/O LATE VINAY BHARGAV,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O GANDHI CHOWK MULTAI PS
MULTAI DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MULTAI DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
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 2 M.Cr.C.No.21161/2024 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 3 M.Cr.C.No.21161/2024 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, 4 M.Cr.C.No.21161/2024 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 Appeal No.2093/2023 has held as under: -
" 27. From the narration of submissions before this Court, it appears that on 31 May 2021, the Minister in - charge of the Co - operative depar tment has set aside the audit report while directing a fresh audit report for 2016 - 2017 and 2017 - 2018. The order of the Minister has been called into question in independent proceedings before the High Court. This Court has been apprised of the fact that t he proceedings are being heard before a Single Judge of the High Court. The proceedings which have been instituted to challenge the order of the Minister will have no bearing on whether the investigation by the police on the FIR which has been filed by the appellant should be allowed to proceed. The police have an independent power and even duty under the CrPC to investigate into an offence once information has been drawn to their attention indicating the commission of an offence. This power is not curtaile d by the provisions of 1960 Act. There is no express bar and the provisions of Section 81(5B) do not by necessary implication exclude the investigative role of the police under the CrPC."
13. Thus, in absence of any restriction on the applicability of the provisions of IPC, this Court cannot quash the registration of offence under the provisions of IPC on the ground that some other remedy is also provided under the special statutes.
14. Section 285 of IPC reads as under:-
5 M.Cr.C.No.21161/2024"285. Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter.--Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
15. Storage of Explosives Substance at a place other than, which is meant for the same, specifically in the residential area will necessarily amount to negligent conduct with respect to fire and combustible matters.
16. Furthermore, this Court can quash the FIR only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. It is the case of the prosecution that applicant has stored the explosives substance in a room of his house.
17. Under these circumstances this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
18. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court should not prejudice and influence the mind of the trial Court because the facts have been considered only in the light of limited scope of interference and any observation, which has been made is only for the purposes to verify as to whether the present case can be 6 M.Cr.C.No.21161/2024 considered in the light of limited scope of interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or not ? Any of the observation shall not be treated as an observation on merits and the trial Court shall decide the trial strictly in accordance with law.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE VB* VINAY KUMAR BURMAN 2024.05.21 19:52:39 +05'30'