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 co- accused. 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 co- accused.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Lbm/-