The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR and protection orders. The court held that the recovery of 46 bags of ammonium nitrate without storage documents precluded quashing, and lack of proof for legal storage prevented granting protection. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1298 of 2019
Petitioner :- Laxmi Prasad Kushwah Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimlendu Tripathi,Pradeepta Kumar Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for the State respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 06.01.2019 lodged by the third respondent at Police Station Kotwali City, District Mahoba as Case Crime No. 08 of 2019, under Section 120-B IPC and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
The allegation in the FIR is that upon information that large quantity of explosive was being utilized/stored, illegally, the police party raided the spot and apprehended one person, whereas one managed to escape, and recovered 46 bags of Ammonium Nitrate as also detonators, wire, etc. The person who was apprehended on the spot disclosed that the explosive was being used in mining by Laxmi Prasad Kushwaha, (the petitioner) who had escaped from the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has a mining permit and under the mining permit certain quantity of explosive can be used by him and that the allegations made to the contrary, are false.
We have examined the document at page 42 of the paper book, which discloses that only a limited quantity of explosive could be used, on daily basis, which comes to 100 Kg. per day. Moreover, there appears to be prohibition on deep hole blasting.
Whether the quantity recovered from the premises was higher than the permissible quantity; and whether the deep hole blasting was permitted or not, and to what extent, are issues to be investigated. But since 46 bags of Ammonium Nitrate Explosive has been recovered, and for storage of which no document has been shown, we find no good reason to quash the FIR.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our
attention to page 18 of the supplementary affidavit filed today to demonstrate that the co-accused has been granted protection, till completion of investigation and, therefore, similar protection be granted to the petitioner.
We have perused the order passed on the petition of the coaccused. In that case, the explosives were not found from the premises of the co-accused, but the allegation against him was that he had sold the explosive. The Court had granted interim protection to the said co-accused on the ground that he held licence for sale and storage of the explosives and that there was no material to show that the co-accused had sold explosives in violation of the terms and conditions of the licence. Whereas, the petitioner has not been able to show that he has legal permit to store that much quantity of explosive.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any justification to grant similar protection to the petitioner as granted to the coaccused.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Lbm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing the FIR regarding illegal storage of explosives should be dismissed.
Whether the petitioner should be granted protection orders similar to a co-accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxmi Prasad Kushwah
State Of U.P.
Others
Manoj Misra
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
