Allowed¶38

Shri Aravindagouda S/O Shivasharanappa Gouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2025CRL.P/100032/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Karnataka Dharwad (NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019), CRL.P No. 100032/2025, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, 14-02-2025: quashes FIR Yelburga PS Crime No.165/2024 (Ss.125, 288 BNS 2023; S.9B Explosive Act 1884) lodged by Muttappa Vaddar against three Yelburga/Koppal stone-crushing operators (Aravindagouda Patil, Basavaraj Kajji, Hullappa Uppar); valid blasting licence defeats S.9B; no endangerment of human life (S.125 BNS); no rash/negligent conduct (S.288 BNS); complainant's prior FIR quashed 13.02.2025 in Crl.P.No.103759/2024 indicates vengeance/ulterior motive; investigation would abuse process; FIR quashing under S.482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS; complainant ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned FIR in Crime No.165/2024 registered at Yelburga Police Station is quashed. ¶38

Shri Aravindagouda S/O Shivasharanappa Gouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned FIR in Crime No.165/2024 registered at Yelburga Police Station is quashed.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 are present where petitioner No.1 holds a valid licence to conduct blasting operations. +3 more

¶30

Court's answer

The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 are absent because petitioner No.1 holds a valid license to conduct blasting operations.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There are no allegations or material to substantiate that the blasting operation endangered human life; accordingly Section 125 of the BNS, 2023 is not attracted.

¶31

Key takeaways

The blasting operation was conducted by a licensed individual and there are no allegations that the stone damaging respondent No.2's house resulted from rash or negligent actions of the petitioners; accordingly Section 288 of the BNS, 2023 is not attracted.ratio¶32
Respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR with an ulterior motive, intending to falsely implicate the petitioners out of vengeance, his earlier FIR having been quashed by this Court on 13.02.2025 in Crl.P.No.103759/2024.ratio¶36
Allowing the investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 100032 of 2025 (filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019), Hemant Chandangoudar J., decided 14.02.2025 — ALLOWED; FIR in Yelburga P.S. Crime No.165/2024 (offences under Ss.125 and 288 BNS 2023 and S.9B Explosive Act 1884) QUASHED. Respondent No.2 (complainant, placed ex parte despite notice served) had alleged that petitioner No.1, owner of a stone crushing unit, with petitioner No.2 (partner) and petitioner No.3, carried out blasting during which a stone fell on his house roof causing damage. Court held: (i) petitioner No.1 holds a valid licence for blasting, so essential ingredients of S.9(B) Explosives Act are absent; (ii) no allegations or material that the blasting endangered human life (S.125 BNS); (iii) blasting done by licensed individual, no allegation the stone fell due to rash or negligent acts (S.288 BNS); (iv) respondent No.2's earlier FIR (abduction and caste-based abuse) was already quashed by this Court on 13.02.2025 in Crl.P.No.103759/2024, showing the present FIR was lodged with ulterior motive out of vengeance; (v) continuing investigation would be an abuse of the process of law. Clarification: petitioners remain bound to conduct blasting strictly per law without endangering human life.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100032 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. ARAVINDAGOUDA S/O. SHIVASHARANAPPA GOUDA PATIL, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YELBURGA TOWN, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 230.

¶7

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. KARISIDDAPPA KAJJI AGED 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YELBURGA TOWN, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 230.

¶8

SHRI. HULLAPPA S/O. MALIYAPPA UPPAR AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VAJRABANDI VILLAGE, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 236.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OFKARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:04 +0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY YELBURGA POLICE STATION, NOW BY SPP DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580008.

¶14

SHRI. MUTTAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA VADDAR AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. VAJRABANDI VILLAGE, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 236.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 -SERVED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT AND FIR IN YELBURGA P.S. CRIME NO.165/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 125, 288 OF BNS AND U/S 9B OF EXPLOSIVE ACT 1884 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELBURGA AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AGAINST PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 RESPECTIVELY.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The present petition challenges the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 125 and 288 of the BNS, 2023.

¶25

The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that petitioner No.1, the owner of a stone crushing unit, along with petitioner No.2 (partner) and petitioner No.3, carried out a blasting operation at the unit, during which a stone fell onto the rooftop of respondent No.2’s house, causing damage. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 has neither appeared in person nor through counsel and is, therefore, placed ex parte.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State were heard.

¶27

Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 prescribes punishment for contravention of rules made under Section 5 or for

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025

¶30

violating the conditions of a license granted under those rules concerning the manufacture, import, export, possession, use, sale, or transport of explosives. In the present case, petitioner No.1 holds a valid license to conduct blasting operations, and thus, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 9(B) are absent.

¶31

Section 125 of the BNS, 2023 pertains to acts committed rashly or negligently, endangering human life or personal safety. However, in this case, there are no allegations or material to substantiate that the blasting operation endangered human life.

¶32

Section 288 of the BNS, 2023 deals with negligent conduct involving explosive substances, making it punishable for any person who, through rash or negligent acts, endangers human life or fails to take adequate precautions against probable danger. Here, the blasting operation was conducted by a licensed individual, and there are no allegations to suggest that the stone that damaged respondent No.2’s house resulted from the rash or negligent actions of the petitioners or the person responsible for the blasting.

¶33

It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 had previously lodged an FIR against the petitioners and two others, alleging abduction and caste-based abuse. However, by order dated 13.02.2025 in Crl.P.No.103759/2024, this Court quashed that FIR. This suggests that respondent No.2 has lodged the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025

¶36

present FIR with an ulterior motive, intending to falsely implicate the petitioners out of vengeance.

¶37

Under such circumstances, allowing the investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶38

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.165/2024, registered at Yelburga Police Station, is hereby quashed.

¶39

It is clarified that the petitioners remain obligated to conduct blasting operations strictly in accordance with the law and without endangering human life.

¶40

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Shri Aravindagouda S/O Shivasharanappa Gouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Aravindagouda S/O Shivasharanappa Gouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pavan Kumar M R Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep S/O Shivappa Alur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chetana Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sundar S/O Mallappa Kundekar Vs Shri Nitin Ishwar Dukare

Huvanagouda S/O. Hanamanthgouda Antaradani, Vs the State of Karnataka

Uttresha S/O Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka