The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana State, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Through P S Wanaparthy Rural. .. Respondenu Complainant 2. Yerragalla Narsrmha, S/o Bichanna. aged about 48 Yrs, Occ. ARPC- 166 R/o Kethepally (V), Pangal (M), Wanaparthy District ...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash FIR in Crime No. 230 of 2025 registered by P,S. Wanaparthy Rural against Petitioner/Accused No. 1, for the offence U/S 3 of Explosive Subst?lnces Act and 288 of BNS on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant intenm stay of all further proceedrngs against Petitioner/Accused No. 1, in Crime No. 230 ot 2025, registered by P.S Wanaparthy Rural for the offence's punishable U/S 3 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec. 288 of BNS, pending disposal of main crimrnal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L. HARISH Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao, Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following ORDER :;2*ia47/ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE,'/I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14 511 0F 202a: ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitione.accused No..l seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Ci.i ne No.230 of 2025 of Wanaparthy Rural Police Station, Wana: trthy District, registered for the offences under Section 3 of Explos r e Substances Act and Section 288 of BNS

2. Heard Sri L. Harish, learned counsel for the retitroner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional publrc rrosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that l e petitioner is the owner of the subject land, but he is not concerned ra,i h the blasting operations in the subject rand. He further submitted th a the boulders in the subject land are being blasted by the worker-. l-le fu:1her submitted that the ingredients of Section 3 of t te Explosive substances Act does not get attracted against the petitirr rer herein, as he was not present at the site at the time of blast He further submitted that the tractor was brought by accused No.r and that the blasting operations are being carried out in the sutject land by accused No.2 with the help of accused No.3. Thus no malicious ( i, TI).J Crl.P.No.l45l I of 2015 intention can be attributed to the petitioner herein. He further submitted that in the absence of Section 3 of the Explosive 2 Substances Act, there cannot be any offence under Section 288 of BNS, as alleged against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein'

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that upon enquiry, lhe de facto complainant came to know that two individuals were conducting blasting operations in the subject land without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities and the two individuals, who were found at the site, were identified as the petitioner-accused No.1, being the owner of the subject land, and accused No.2-tractor driver. Therefore, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act definitely gets attracted against the petitioner herein. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record

6. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 288 of BNS The same are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference. Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act: 3 F,] D.J --rl l'}.No.l45l I o,-2015 "3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to r ndanger life or property.- Any person who unlaMully and maliciously causes b / - (a) any explosive substance an explosion of a natu - , likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to prop€ 1y shall, whether any injury to person or property has bee r actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonmenl for lrf r, or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which sh rll not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) any special category explosive substance an exp ( sion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or prol erty has been actually caused or not, be punished with t eath, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable. c fine.', Section 288 of BNS: "288. Negligent conduct with respect to -. <plosive substance.- Whoever does, with any explosive substance any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or l rowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any r xplosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guarr against any probable danger to human life from that substar:e, shall be punrshed with imprisonment of either description i r a term which may extend to six months, or wlth fine which me r' extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.', d?- \ \ \ .E (^x 4 El D,J Crl.P.No.l45l I of2025

7. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 and is the owner of the subject land. The allegations in the complaint are that on hearing the noise of explosion, the de /acfo complainant, who is a police constable, along with few other personnel, went to the subject land and found two male persons wei'e present along with a compresso!' tractor bearing registration No.TS-06-EK-4563, and upon enquiry, the de facto complainant came to know that the individuals were conducting blasting operations with the help of detonators to remove boulders in lhe agricultural land, without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities, and that they revealed their names as A.K. Murthy-owner of the subject land, who is the petitioner herein, and Vadde Laxmaiah, tractor operator. Thus, the allegations in the complaint do point oul prima facle case against the petitioner herein. The investigation is still in progress. Therefore, it is not proper to interfere with the process of investigation at this stage' Hence, it is opined that the Criminal Petition lacks merit.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-B.REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR A //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy. 2. The Station House Officer, Wanaparthy Rural Police Station, Wanaparthy , Wanaparthy Dist.

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad OUT I I I

4. One CC to SRI. L. HARISH Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies kul/PSL ,-.-- -. i THi: .i ,,i t, !26 z -.tt- ,, -\V !nr-g+t:':)/ HIGH COURT DAf ED:2711112025 ORDER CRLP.No.14511 of 2025 ,,1,;: /!'a\| ,'d' ;lr-) ii.- i . --^r ,;.'"/. '.:i,,. ''(t, DISMISSING THE CRL.PETITION q