Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Cases Against Alleged Explosives Suppliers For Illegal Quarrying, Says Their Link To Seized Explosives Is For Trial

The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings arising from separate police cases alleging that explosives had been supplied to unauthorised contractors for illegal quarrying.

The charge sheets invoked, as applicable, the Explosives Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and provisions of the IPC.

In all but one petition, the petitioners’ names were not in the FIRs; they were implicated during investigation, principally through co-accused statements and witness statements.

In one case, police witnesses also identified a petitioner as having fled during a raid.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the material did not connect them to the seized explosives and that the case against them rested on co-accused confessions without corroboration.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Explosives Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the MMDR Act, 1957, and the IPC were the statutes under which the alleged offences were charged.

The petitioners relied on Rules 15, 24 and 47 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, concerning package markings, licensees’ stock records and transport documentation.

Applying State of Karnataka & Another v. Sadiq Pasha, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2059, the Court held that proceedings should not be quashed merely because a co-accused’s confession may not, by itself, be relied on at trial; at the investigation and charge-sheet stage, such a disclosure may lead to further evidence, and the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence are matters for trial.

The Court found that the charge sheets contained allegations linking the petitioners to the alleged supply of explosives: co-accused named them as suppliers, and, in Crl.P. No. 1842/2024, police witnesses identified Mourya as having fled the raid.

The explosives had been seized at the spot, and the alleged suppliers’ connection to them—including whether the explosives could be traced to the petitioners—required evidentiary assessment at trial.

The asserted lack of package numbers or supporting stock and transport records therefore did not justify quashing at this stage.

The Court declined to treat the co-accused statements as a basis for terminating the proceedings, distinguishing the question of their ultimate evidentiary value from whether the prosecution should proceed.

It held that the alleged supply, the connection between the petitioners and the seized explosives, and the evidentiary value of the material were matters for trial.

It made no finding on the merits and left all contentions open.