Mohd. Shamim Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Mohd. Shamim Khan, arising out of Crime No.513/2024. The Court found that the material on record did not disclose the necessary foundational ingredients of Sections 304, 120-B, and 212 of the IPC or Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, against the petitioner. Specifically, there was no sufficient material showing his participation in causing the explosion, possession or control over the explosive substance, participation in a criminal conspiracy, or harbouring of any offender. The Court reasoned that mere presence at the premises, familial relationship with the proprietor, or giving general instructions to workers, without material showing participation in the alleged conspiracy, knowledge, possession, or control of explosive substance, or participation in the act causing the explosion, cannot establish the necessary ingredients of the offences. The Court noted the absence of corroborative material like statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or independent documentary evidence showing the petitioner's control over the premises or possession of explosives, despite the seriousness of the allegations. The Court concluded that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The order was confined to the petitioner and would not affect the investigation or prosecution of other accused. The issue of maintainability due to defective verification was implicitly set aside by the decision on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Shamim Khan, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The FIR stemmed from an explosion at a scrap yard owned by his son, Mohd. Faheem Khan, which resulted in two deaths and injuries. The petitioner claimed he had no involvement in the business, which was solely his son's proprietorship, with all registrations, including GST, in his son's name. He asserted he was a resident of Nagpur and had no role in the procurement, storage, or handling of scrap. The State opposed the petition, alleging material suppression of facts, including previous withdrawn and rejected applications for anticipatory bail and quashment of the same FIR. The State also raised a preliminary objection regarding the defective verification of the writ petition, as it was supported by an affidavit from the petitioner's brother-in-law, not the petitioner himself. Furthermore, the State contended that investigation revealed the petitioner's involvement through worker statements and his son's memorandum, and pointed to his conduct after the incident, including leaving India and the issuance of a Look Out Circular.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 304, 120-B, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, insofar as it pertains to the petitioner, is liable to be quashed for want of sufficient material to establish his involvement (Section 304 IPC, Section 3 & 5 Explosive Substances Act, Section 120-B IPC, Section 212 IPC)? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable due to defective verification and affidavit? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to his familial relationship with the proprietor, his son. He contended that all business-related documents, including GST registration, were in his son's name, and he had no connection to the scrap yard's operations or the procurement and handling of explosive substances. He relied on agreements showing his son's sole proprietorship and communications clarifying authorization for scrap procurement. He cited State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India for quashing the FIR and directing a fair investigation. Respondents' (State) Arguments: The State argued that the petition was based on suppression of material facts, including previous withdrawn and rejected applications related to the same FIR. They also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition due to an affidavit filed by the petitioner's brother-in-law, not the petitioner himself, violating High Court Rules and settled law. The State asserted that investigation materials, including worker statements and the co-accused's memorandum, indicated the petitioner's involvement in the scrap yard's affairs and his conduct after the incident, such as leaving the country, supported the charges.