[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sata Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:13486]                    (1 of 11)                     [CRLMP-9130/2025]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9130/2025

Sata Ram S/o Dola Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Neembal Kot
District Badmer
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2.       Station House Officer, Police Station Panchu District
         Bikaner
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Vinod Kumar Panwar, through VC
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

1. Date of Conclusion of Arguments 06.03.2026

2. Date on which judgment was 06.03.2026 reserved

3. Whether the full judgment or only Full operative part is pronounced.

4. Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by

the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 231/2025

registered at Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner, for the

offences under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955 and Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The facts of the case are that a tanker bearing Registration

No. RJ-04-GC-5171 was carrying Marine Oil from Gandhidham,

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

Kandla to Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The said tanker was seized

when it was found standing on a 'kachha' road, approximately two

kilometers away from Bhata Kund Chowraha of village Janglu.

Upon checking the vehicle, it was found carrying e-way bills, tax

invoices, permits and all other necessary documents. The quantity

of oil being transported was 31,360.000 kilograms. Thereafter, the

FIR in question came to be registered by the police authorities

under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and

Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter

referred as 'BNS')

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare

reading of the FIR, no allegations constituting the offences in

question are made out. It is further submitted that the tanker was

on its designated route and was carrying all the relevant

documents. Learned counsel submitted that the tanker had valid

permits, tax invoices, e-way bills and other statutory documents,

clearly showing lawful transportation of the product from its

source at Gandhidham, Kandla to Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar,

Haryana. The alleged place i.e. village Janglu Police Station

Panchu, from where the tanker was seized is as per the FIR itself

two kilometers from the main road, and is on the highway to

Haryana and therefore, the tanker was on its designated route and

had merely halted at the alleged place, as the driver had stopped

to meet someone en route. It is also submitted that the tanker

was fully calibrated and all seals were found intact. The Deputy

Controller of Explosives had duly issued the licence for

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

transportation of Class-A and Class-B petroleum products and the

tanker was operating strictly in accordance with the said licence.

4. It is submitted that the present FIR has been registered

despite the fact that there was no violation of the provisions of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or any provision of the BNS. It is

contended that merely because the vehicle was found standing on

a 'kachha' road, the same by itself does not constitute any offence

under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act or under

Section 287 of the BNS.

5. It is also submitted that the FIR contains contradictory

statements regarding the movement of the vehicle at the time it

was intercepted by the police.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a reply along with the

report of investigation dated 03.12.2025. It is submited that

although all the documents were found to be intact and even

during the course of investigation no tampering with the seals of

the tanker was found, nevertheless, the vehicle was found

standing on a 'kachha' road. It is contended that since the tanker

was carrying inflammable petroleum product and was found near

an 'abadi' area, such act amounts to endangering human life and

thus attracts the provisions of Section 287 of the BNS, and offence

under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act is also

made out.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

8. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public

Prosecutor and has also gone through the contents of the FIR and

the reply filed by the State.

9. A reading of the FIR reveals that the tanker was intercepted

near village Janglu while transporting Distilled Marine Oil. All

relevant documents, including permits and e-way bills, were

produced and no deficiency in the same has been found. The seals

of the compartments of the tanker were also found intact. Further,

the reply submitted by the State as well as the report of

investigation clearly reveal that all documents were verified and

found to be valid upon investigation from the owner of the seized

vehicle as well as the ordering firm. The FIR does not disclose

violation of any licensing or control orders and a mere reference to

violation of Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act has

been made, whereas the tanker was carrying all valid documents.

10. The prosecution has attempted to make out a case that since

the tanker was found on an unpaved road near village Janglu, the

same amounts to negligent conduct with respect to combustible

material, as it was allegedly taken through an 'abadi' area away

from the main road. It is not disputed by the parties that village

Janglu lies adjacent to the highway connecting Kandla to Haryana.

As per the FIR, the tanker was found stationed approximately two

kilometers away from the main road on a 'kachha' road. On the

basis of the said facts, the police agency has sought to invoke

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, treating the act

as negligent so as to endanger human life.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that even if

all the requisite documents have been found to be valid and intact,

the offence under Section 287 of the BNS would nevertheless be

attracted. It is contended that the act of the petitioner in halting

the Tanker carrying highly inflammable petroleum product on a

'kachha' road situated near an 'abadi' area amounts to negligent

conduct so as to endanger human life and safety. Section 287 of

the BNS reads as follows:-

"287. 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 two thousand rupees, or with both."

12. The High Court of Allahabad, in Chamman Lal v. State,

reported in MANU/UP/0103/1954, has observed that an

essential requirement of Section 287 of the Indian Penal Code is

that the accused must have done some act involving fire or any

combustible substance in a rash or negligent manner so as to

endanger human life. The concept of a "rash and negligent act"

has been further elaborated by the Allahabad High Court in the

said judgment as under:

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

"6. Rashness and negligence are not the same things.

Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence and rashness, and, In order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence, one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowingly that the hazard was of such a degree that Injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences, criminal negligence is a gross and culpable neglect, that is to say, a failure to exercise that care and failure to take that precaution which, having regard to the circumstances. It was the imperative duty of the individual to take. Culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow although the individual hopes, even though he hopes sincerely, that such consequences may not follow. The criminality lies in not taking the precautions to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. The law does not permit a man to be uncautious on a hope however earnest or honest that hope may be."

13. Again, in Tika Ram v. Rex, reported in

MANU/UP/0112/1950, the High Court of Allahabad has

explained the scope and meaning of a "rash and negligent act".

Although the said case pertained to an offence under Section 304-

A of the Indian Penal Code, the observations made therein are

relevant to the present case. The Court has observed as under:-

"5. Section 304A, Penal Code, runs as follows:

"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both."

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

6. This section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act done will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which, without any such intention or knowledge, death is caused by what is described as a 'rash' or 'negligent' act. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or an act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act Is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that In rashness the action is done precipitately with the consciousness that the mischievous or Illegal consequences may follow, but with a hope that they win not. But, it is not necessary that there should always be this consciousness in a rash act. It has also been observed that in negligence there Is no such consciousness of the consequences. This is also untrue as the observation of Lord Atkin quoted hereafter will show."

14. Therefore, for the purpose of fastening liability under Section

287 of the BNS (pari materia to Section 285 IPC), it must be

established that the accused himself acted in such a rash or

negligent manner as to endanger human life. Alternatively, it must

be shown that the accused omitted to take such order with any

fire or combustible material in his possession as was sufficient to

guard against any probable danger to human life.

15. The existence of a rash or negligent act has to be examined

in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present

case, the allegations emerging from the FIR against the petitioner

are that an offence under Section 287 BNS is made out on the

ground that the tanker was found stationed at a deserted location

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

on an unpaved road (kucha sadak), and that it had allegedly

passed through an 'abadi' area, deviating from the main route.

16. As noticed herein-above, the tanker was parked in a deserted

area, neither within nor even in the immediate vicinity of any

'abadi area', and was situated approximately two kilometers away

from the main road. The seals of the tanker were found intact,

and there is no allegation that the petitioner was emptying,

transferring, or otherwise mishandling the petroleum product.

There is also no material on record to indicate any leakage, unsafe

handling, or the existence of any imminent risk to public safety.

17. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have

acted with such rashness as to have knowingly taken a risk likely

to cause injury, nor can it be held that he was guilty of criminal

negligence by failing to exercise the care and precautions which,

in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was his duty to

observe.

18. Merely transporting or passing through or near an 'abadi' or

populated area, without anything more, by itself would not make

the act of the petitioner rash and negligent so as to endanger

human life. The act attributed to the petitioner cannot be said to

constitute a rash or negligent act within the meaning of Section

287 BNS. In such circumstances the ingredients of the offence

under Section 287 BNS are clearly absent in the FIR.

19. Further, as submitted herein-above and as is evident from

the FIR as well as the factual report dated 03.12.2025, the

petitioner was in possession of a valid license, valid permits and all

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

requisite documents. There is no allegation of any tampering with

the tanker and all its seals were found intact. Moreover, the tanker

was on its designated route and merely because the driver had

gone to meet someone in Village Janglu, which is adjacent to the

main road, it cannot be inferred that the tanker had deviated from

its route or that the petroleum product was being transported

illegally in violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(d) of the

Essential Commodities Act. In view of the same, it is evident that

the tanker in question was lawfully transporting Marine Oil with all

valid permits, licenses and statutory documents.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs

Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down

the principles under which this Court can exercise powers to quash

the FIR. The relevant portion of the said judgment is hereunder:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

21. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) have consistently been

followed in a catena of subsequent judgments. Recently, the Apex

Court in Guru Kanwarpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam & Ors.

(SLP (Crl.) No. 5485/2025) and in B.N. John v. State of U.P.

& Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 4, has reiterated that where the

allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of any

offence, the same is liable to be quashed.

22. Hence, upon a careful reading of the impugned FIR, this

Court finds that the allegations, even if taken at their face value

and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients

of the offences punishable under Section 287 of the BNS or under