CRL OP/29798/2026 of Somu @ K.Somasundaram Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.343 of 2026 for the offences punishable under sections 288 of BNS, 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosive Act and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, on the file of the 1st Respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered FIR alleging that the first accused unlawfully kept certain explosive substances in his house for the purpose of digging a well. The first accused was purchased 20 electronic detectors, 1 box of Rex, one roll of fuse wire, and 79 Rex sticks. Consequently, the first accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On the confession statement of first accused, the first respondent found that the explosives were purchased from the third accused. It is further alleged that all the accused persons failed to follow any of the procedure and also without license, A1 and A2 possessed explosives and also transported the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as the petitioner/third accused is concerned, he is a valid license holder authorized to sell explosive substances. Therefore, there is no offence is made out as against the third accused. Hence, he prays for quashment of the FIR.

4. On perusal of the records and having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel, though the petitioner claims to hold license to seel explosives, the allegations indicate that all the accused persons failed to follow the procedure and possessed no license to transport the explosives. Therefore, it has to be investigated to find out the truth in this regard.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- “23. ....................

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; ..............

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; .............

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”

7. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.343 of 2026. The respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.343 of 2026 and file a final report within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to produce whatever the documents available in respect of possessing the explosives before the first respondent. On receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law, and if no cognizance made out against the third accused, the name of the third accused shall be deleted at the time of filing the final report.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPA To

1. The Inspector of Police Vellakoil Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.343 of 2026

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. MPA CRL OP No. 29798 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.19823 of 2026 13-10-2026