Rahul Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10184 MP

                                                                  1
                             IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                                    ON THE 5 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9645 of 2023

                            BETWEEN:-
                            RAHUL BANSAL S/O LATE SHRI OMPRAKASH BANSAL,
                            AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
                            GOPINATH KI PULIYA DATTAPURA MORENA (MADHYA
                            PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                            (BY SHRI SANKALP SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
                            STATION P.S. BANMORE MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                            (BY SHRI SANKALP SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                  This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                            following:
                                                                  ORDER

The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.526/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 304, 308 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 registered at Police Station Banmore District Morena and all the consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

As per prosecution story, on 20.10.2022 at 12 noon complainant Dileep lodged a Dehati Nalishi at Distt. Hospital, Morena, with police Sub- Inspector Jogendra Yadav of police Station Bamore that he is having house at

Signature Not Verified Jaitpur Road Bamore. Near his house, house of Bhura Sarpanch is situated in Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/6/2023 10:15:26 AM

which Nirmal Jain runs a grocery shop. In the house of Bhura Sarpanch, Jameel Khan along with his family is residing as a tenant who used to manufacture firecrackers. He advised him various times not to manufacture firecrackers in the said house as it is a crowded place and there is no proper arrangements of security and water, otherwise any untoward incident could happen. But he did not pay heed to his advise. He also complained to landlord Rakesh Gurjar and Dhuadhar Gurjar, but they replied that "how are you concerned and they are the owners of the house". Today in the morning at about 11.30 when he was standing on Jaitpur road crossing, his son Vijay went to the shop of Nirmal Jain. Pappu @ Jitendra Gurjar, Vishal, Raj residents of Jaitpur were also present

there. At that time, explosion took place in the house of Jameel, due to which said house fell down. His son Vijay aged about 7 years, Pappu @ Jitendra Gurjar, wife of Jameel Anno, daughter of Jameel Joya Khan, sons Shaheed Khan, Ameen Khan, Naveen Khan, Nirmal Jain and others were seriously injured. Nearby persons assembled there. With their help, injured were brought to Noorabad and Morena Hospital, but Pappu @ Jitendra Gurjar, Anno Khan, Joya Khan and his son Vijay were declared dead. Remaining injured were referred to Gwalior. This incident took place because of negligence of Jameel Khan. On his report, Dehati Nalishi for the offence under Sections 304, 308 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosives Substances Act was recorded. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR has been registered. Accused Jameel was arrested. During investigation, memorandum statement of Jameel was recorded in which he has stated that he used to buy material to manufacture firecrackers from petitioner Rahul Bansal. Thereafter petitioner w a s apprehended on 23.10.2022. From the possession of present petitioner, registration certificate Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/6/2023 10:15:26 AM

and other documents were seized.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not involved in the case directly or indirectly. He has been implicated in the present case only on the basis o f memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act which is not at all admissible. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pradeep Sharma Vs State of M.P. passed in CRR No.1789/2020 dated 14.08.2020. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) i n P. Sadanand Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Cr.R.No.662/2013 dated 14.10.2016 which reads in Para 34 of the Judgment as hereunder:

"Where the Explosive Act, 1884 is a regulatory statue, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is purely a penal statute. An offence u/s. 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 only comes into being where the person so charged has done the proscribed act with intention to endanger life and property, and the same is done unlawfully and maliciously. It has never been the case of the prosecution that the Petitioners have ever done an act with the intention of endangering life or property. Neither is it the case of

the prosecution that there has been any malice on the part of the Petitioners to cause loss to human lives and properties. The requirement of mens rea for offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is writ large on every section of the Act.

However, the case of the prosecution against the petitioners is one Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/6/2023 10:15:26 AM

of negligence and not of malicious intent to kill, maim or destroy property. Not a single piece of evidence has been placed before this Court by the Ld. Counsel for the State in order to sustain a charge u/s. 4(b) (i) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and so the said charge also is untenable and deserves to be set aside".

Learned State counsel has conceded the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on record.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR bearing bearing Crime No.526/2022 for the offence punishable u/s 304, 308 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 registered at Police Station Banmore District Morena and all the consequential proceedings arising out in respect of present petitioner are hereby quashed. Petitioner is discharged from all the charges of the present case.

The petition is allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Vijay

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/6/2023 10:15:26 AM