- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100032 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. ARAVINDAGOUDA S/O. SHIVASHARANAPPA GOUDA PATIL, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YELBURGA TOWN, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 230. 2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. KARISIDDAPPA KAJJI AGED 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. YELBURGA TOWN, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 230. 3. SHRI. HULLAPPA S/O. MALIYAPPA UPPAR AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VAJRABANDI VILLAGE, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 236. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY YELBURGA POLICE STATION, NOW BY SPP DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580008. 2. SHRI. MUTTAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA VADDAR AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. VAJRABANDI VILLAGE, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583 236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 -SERVED) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025 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. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State were heard. 5. Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 prescribes punishment for contravention of rules made under Section 5 or for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3019 CRL.P No. 100032 of 2025 present FIR with an ulterior motive, intending to falsely implicate the petitioners out of vengeance. 9. Under such circumstances, allowing the investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.165/2024, registered at Yelburga Police Station, is hereby quashed. 11. It is clarified that the petitioners remain obligated to conduct blasting operations strictly in accordance with the law and without endangering human life. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6