Quashing is unwarranted where investigation discloses a prima facie case requiring trial.

On 11.11.2023, acting on telephonic information, the police raided the petitioner’s shop, “Shibam Stationery Shop,” at Kayettala, Gourhati, under Arambagh Police Station, and seized approximately 35 kilograms of prohibited sound-crackers and fireworks.

As the petitioner allegedly failed to produce a valid licence for their sale, Arambagh P.S. Case No. 381/2023 was registered under Sections 188, 285 and 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 24 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950.

After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet No. 386/2023 dated 30.11.2023 against the petitioner.

The petitioner approached the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding, contending that he was merely a staff member, was not the owner or seller, and that the seized articles were permissible “green crackers”.

The Court applied Sections 188, 285 and 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant and negligent or unlawful conduct involving combustible or explosive substances, together with Section 24 of the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950, relating to contraventions involving fire safety and explosives/fireworks.

The Court further applied the principle governing exercise of revisional/quashing jurisdiction that, where the FIR and investigation materials disclose a prima facie offence, the High Court should not conduct a trial or mini-trial to determine the truth of the allegations or assess disputed factual defences.

The Court examined the case diary, including the statements and seizure list, and found that the initial information, police raid, seizure of 35 kilograms of sound-crackers and fireworks, and the petitioner’s failure to produce a valid licence disclosed a cognizable offence at the stage of registration.

The investigation had also produced sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the shop and the alleged offences; the case diary indicated that he was the owner of “Shibam Stationery Shop,” contrary to his assertion that he was merely an employee.

The petitioner’s claims that he had not sold the crackers and that they were permissible green crackers raised disputed questions of fact. Determining those questions would require an evidentiary assessment at trial, which the High Court declined to undertake in a quashing proceeding.

C.R.R. No. 2884 of 2024 was accordingly dismissed, and any connected applications were disposed of.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, was directed to proceed expeditiously and bring the case to its logical conclusion.

Any interim order was vacated, and the case diary was directed to be returned to the State’s counsel.