CRLP/12606/2025 of Kanneboina Mahender, Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.'l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.367 oI 2025 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, registered for the offence under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884.

2. Heard [/ls. B. Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State X

ETD,J Crl '.No.12606 of 2025 >d that the rers herein; explosives r(b) of the police failed '155(1) and >nt C.C. are dings in the counsel, in ;ision of the (arnatakal, rerein were not followed ed that the r-cog n iza ble rders in the

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submil police have foisted a false case against the petiti: that the petitioners have permission for conductirrr business; that the offence under Section 9B(1 Explosives Act is a non-cognizable offence; that thr: to follow the procedure contemplated under Sectior

(2) of Cr.P.C. and thus, the proceedings in the pres vitrated. She, therefore, prayed to quash the procet present C.C. against the petitioners herein. Learnerr support of her submissions, has relied upon the dr: High Court of Karnataka in Harish Babu v. State o' wherein the proceedings against the accused t quashed when the procedure under the Cr.P.C. war; in case of registration of non-cognizable offence.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submt offence alleged against the petitioners is a no offence and therefore, prayed to pass appropriate < Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record. ' NC:2023,KHC:Aq692 (Crt.P.No.12231 of 2023, dated O8.12.2023)

ETD,J Crl P No 12606 of2025

6. The allegations against the petitioners herein are that petitioner No. 1-accused No. 1 is running Bhuvaneshwari Enterprises Explosives [Vlagazine at Jagiripalli outskirts without any valid license or permit from the concerned, having purchased the same from petitioner No.2-accused No.2, and selling the explosives to needy persons on higher price and getting benefits illegally. The police have apprehended the accused and explosives were seized from the. possession of petitioner No.1- accused No.1. Thus, the petitioners are charged for the offence under Section 9B(1Xb) of the Explosives Act. The same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "98. Punishment for certain offences.-(1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules- (a) xxx (b) Possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both;" The said offence is a non-cognizable offence and so, the police have to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 155 Cr.P.C. The said Section is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

X E'ID,J C.. .No.12606 of2025 " 155. lnformation as to non-cognizable cast-' and investigation of such cases.-(1) When information i: given to an officer-in-charge of a police station 'f the commission within the limits of such station of rnon- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be t ntered the substance of the information in a book to be t ept by such officer in such form as the State Governmr: tt may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No Police Officer shall investigate a non-cor; tizable case without the order of Magistrate having pow3 to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any Police Officer receiving such order may : rercise the same powers in respect of the investigation except the power to arrest without warrant) as an of cer-in- charge of a police station may exercise in a co 3 tizable case_

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offe't ces of which at least one is cognizable, the case ; rall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding hat the other offences are non-cog nizable."

7. The police on receiving information wilt regard to commission of a non-cognizable offence have to merl e an entry in the GD book and then have to seek the pernri ;sion of the ti/agistrate prior to registration of the crime and the reafter, shall proceed with investigation. ln the present c€r! e, the said procedure was not followed by the police. The t;, ,mplaint was lodged by the Sub-lnspector of Police on 05.04.2124 and the

I \

DTD.J Crl.P.No. 12606 of 2025 F.l.R was registered on the same day against the petitioners herein. The record does not disclose as to the GD entry made by the police and also as to obtaining permission of the concerned lVlagistrate. Further, it is discrosed from the recitars of the F.r.R. that the police have submitted to the concerned Court i.e., I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, about the contents of the complaint and have stated that the apprehended accused arong with seized case materiar were brought to the police station at 16:00 hours and a Suo [\4otu case was registered. Thus, it shows that the police have violated the procedure contemplated under Section 155 Cr.p.C. Therefore, it vitiates the proceedings and continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners in the present C.C. would be an abuse of process of law. B. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal2, held that when the allegation in the F.l.R. and other material, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(i) of Cr.p.C., except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of Cr.p.C., the power under Section 482 of Cr.p.C., needs to be exercised by the '] 1992 Supp.(l) SCC 3j5 II

I]TD.J (r P.No 12606 o1-2025 High Court. Following the said principle, the tl gh Court of Karnataka in Badrinath v. The State of Kalr ataka3, has quashed the proceedings against the accused therei r.

9. ln Harish Babu's case (supra 1), the l-li th Court of Karnataka has quashed the proceedings against the accused therein by following its earlier judgment in Smt. li rilpa v. The State of Karnatakaa, wherein, it was held that il the offence alleged is a non-cognizable offence, the pol r e have no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter without the rermission of the jurisdictional IVlagistrate. Applying the said p' rciple to the case on hand, the proceedings in the present C.C. a'e also liable to be quashed against the petitioners herein.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allorr :d and the proceedings in C.C.No.367 o'f 2025 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial [/lagistrate of First Class, Hu :urabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. liliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall s and closed tNC:2oZttt kHc - k: 35+7 Sd/.I '. PONNA KRISHNA SI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzuraba I

2. The station House officer, saidapur police station, Karirr nagar District

3. Two CCs to_ the Public Prosecutor, HiSh Court for the ll ate of Tetenorna .r

*ol-P nl, 578 of 2022'dt'30'06' 2o2'- To, l AS \i \ ftE*. (

ry

4. One CC to Sri CH. Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

5. Two CD Copies ltu

HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 3111212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.12606 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION l: i rll I ?1JAN a c)t I I

it tl -{.'," *z' ;:O -zj/ ./' +tt tu\ Itat