Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O Tirakappa Surad vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3831
CRL.P No. 103012 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103012 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O. TIRAKAPPA SURAD
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AT POST. KUNIMELLIHALLI,
TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HANGAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
Digitally signed by B
K SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR CRIME NO. 80/2021 ON THE FILE OF
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HANGAL DATED 30.04.2021
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REGISTERED BY HANAGAL P.S. AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 5 AND 6 OF EXPLOSIVES
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 AND 9B (1) (a) (b) OF EXPLOSIVES ACT
1884, CONCERNING THE PETITIONER, SO FOR AS PETITIONER
/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3831
CRL.P No. 103012 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner challenges the registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 9B(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosives Act, 1884. The FIR was filed after a raid on a stone quarry, where Accused No. 1 (the owner of the quarry) and others were found attempting a blasting operation without the necessary licence.
3. The relevant sections of the Explosives Acts address licensing and prescribe punishments for contraventions. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act penalizes making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, while Section 9B(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosives Act cover violations related to the manufacture, possession, use, or transport of explosives without a valid licence.
4. The petitioner/accused had a valid licence issued by the Chief Controller of Explosives in Mangalore to carry out blasting operations in the quarry, which was valid until 25.05.2033. Therefore, the allegation that blasting operations were attempted without a licence is baseless. The only allegation against petitioner/accused No.4 is that he was the driver of the tempo belonging to Accused No. 1 and was present at the scene on the day of the inspection.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3831 CRL.P No. 103012 of 2022
5. The FIR against Accused No.1 was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 100960/2022, vide order dated 17.02.2025.
6. In view of the foregoing, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No. 80/2021, registered by Hangal Police Station, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.4, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78