IPC prosecution for hazardous-waste dumping cannot stand when tested samples are found non-hazardous.

The applicants sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of an FIR alleging that chemical waste was being dumped in open land behind their factory.

The FIR invoked Sections 284, 336, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

In a separate complaint brought by a Gujarat Pollution Control Board officer concerning the same incident, the Magistrate discharged the applicants under Sections 7, 15, 16 and 19 of the Act, relying on an IIT Gandhinagar report that found the tested samples were not hazardous waste.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed where, on the same facts, the applicants had been discharged in the Pollution Control Board’s complaint after the samples were found not to be hazardous waste.

Whether the allegations could sustain the IPC offences under Sections 284, 336 and 427, read with Section 114, in light of that report and discharge.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.

The Court considered the FIR’s provisions under Sections 284 (negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substances), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety) and 427 (mischief causing damage), read with Section 114, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongside the relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

No precedent was cited.

The Court’s stated basis was that continuation of proceedings on the same facts was unwarranted where the tested waste was found not to be hazardous and the IPC offences would not otherwise be attracted.

The Court treated the IIT Gandhinagar report and the resulting discharge in the Pollution Control Board’s complaint as material to the basis of the FIR.

Since the samples collected by the Board were found not to be hazardous waste, the Court concluded that the environmental allegations could not justify continuation of the FIR and that the facts did not attract the invoked IPC offences.

It therefore found the proceedings, arising from the same set of facts, liable to be quashed.

Rule was made absolute in each application.