The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against a man accused of culpable homicide over an explosion in a scrapyard which claimed two lives and injured two others. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 415]

In doing so the court observed that mere association or relationship of the accused with the scrapyard proprietor, or accused's presence at the premises where he allegedly gave instructions would not be enough to invoke culpable homicide in absence of any evidence showing that he was responsible for the explosion.

Observing that the said man was merely associated with the proprietor of the said scrapyard, the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed:

"The State has relied upon statements of workers alleging that the petitioner visited the scrap yard and gave instructions. Even if such statements are taken at their face value, 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 and possession or control of explosive substance, or participation in the act causing the explosion, cannot by itself establish the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged. Criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a person merely because of his relationship with another accused...

In the present case, there is no material to show that the petitioner participated in the procurement, possession, storage or handling of the explosive substance, or that he was responsible for the circumstances in which the explosion occurred. There is also no material indicating any specific act or omission on his part having a direct nexus with the deaths in question or demonstrating the requisite intention or knowledge. Mere association with the proprietor of the premises, or alleged presence and issuance of general instructions at the scrap-yard, without any further material establishing participation in the act which resulted in the explosion, cannot satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304 IPC"

A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR for culpable homicide (Section 304), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), and for harbouring an offender (Section 212) of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

According to the prosecution, an explosion occurred in a scrapyard named Raza Metal Industries on April 25, 2024, injuring two people and claiming the lives of two others. Subsequently, a crime was registered. The petitioner is the father of co-accused FK, who is stated to be the proprietor of the said scrapyard.

During the investigation, it was alleged that the scrap stored in the yard consisted of demolished ammunition and explosive substances procured from Long Proof Range, Khamaria, Jabalpur, and that their unsafe handling led to the blast.

The petitioner's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, as he had no connection with the scrapyard business. The counsel submitted that, per the documents, the scrapyard stood exclusively in the name of the petitioner's son, and the petitioner was neither proprietor, nor a partner, nor a Director.

It was submitted that the photo identity card issued to the petitioner in favour of Raza Metals did not authorize the purchase or handling of explosives, as demonstrated by the communication of July 4, 2024 issued by MSTC Limited.

The counsel for the State argued that the petition is filed with suppression of material facts and incorrect disclosure of the petitioner's conduct. It was argued that the petitioner has approached the court repeatedly without disclosing earlier petitions. The State informed the court that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently, he filed an application seeking quashing of the FIR, but the same was withdrawn.

The State argued that the statements of the workers demonstrated that the petitioner was involved in the affairs of the scrapyard and used to issue instructions to the labourers. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeter who was accused in as many as 18 cases since the year 1995 under various offences, including murder (Section 302), attempt to murder (Section 307), voluntarily causing hurt using a dangerous weapon (Section 324), theft (Section 379), extortion (Section 384), and under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.

Considering the objection on maintainability of the petitioner, the court noted that the previous miscellaneous applications were withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.

Referring to the case of Muskan Enterprises v. State of Haryana, the court reiterated that dismissal of a previous petition does not preclude the filing of a subsequent petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it is prompted by a change in the law.

On the State's contention that previous anticipatory bail was rejected, the bench emphasized that rejection of previous anticipatory bail does not preclude the Court from independently examining whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Regarding the petitioner's involvement in the scrapyard, the bench noted that even if the statements of the workers show the presence of the petitioner at the premises, it cannot by itself establish the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences.

Taking a serious note of the facts, the bench noted

"It is also significant to note that the despite the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the investigation has remained pending for a considerable period, no effort has been made by the prosecution to have such statements recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are part of investigation and are not substantive evidence".

Therefore, the bench held that there was no material indicating any specific act or omission on the petitioner's part having a direct nexus with the deaths and injuries in question. Accordingly, the bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner.

For Petitioner: Advocate Sunil Kumar Pandey

For State: Government Advocate AS Baghel