Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sata Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (1 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9130/2025
Sata Ram S/o Dola Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Neembal Kot
District Badmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Panchu District
Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Panwar, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
1. Date of Conclusion of Arguments 06.03.2026
2. Date on which judgment was 06.03.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full
operative part is pronounced.
4. Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2026
1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by
the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 231/2025
registered at Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner, for the
offences under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 and Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The facts of the case are that a tanker bearing Registration
No. RJ-04-GC-5171 was carrying Marine Oil from Gandhidham,
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
Kandla to Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The said tanker was seized
when it was found standing on a ‘kachha’ road, approximately two
kilometers away from Bhata Kund Chowraha of village Janglu.
Upon checking the vehicle, it was found carrying e-way bills, tax
invoices, permits and all other necessary documents. The quantity
of oil being transported was 31,360.000 kilograms. Thereafter, the
FIR in question came to be registered by the police authorities
under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and
Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred as ‘BNS’)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare
reading of the FIR, no allegations constituting the offences in
question are made out. It is further submitted that the tanker was
on its designated route and was carrying all the relevant
documents. Learned counsel submitted that the tanker had valid
permits, tax invoices, e-way bills and other statutory documents,
clearly showing lawful transportation of the product from its
source at Gandhidham, Kandla to Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar,
Haryana. The alleged place i.e. village Janglu Police Station
Panchu, from where the tanker was seized is as per the FIR itself
two kilometers from the main road, and is on the highway to
Haryana and therefore, the tanker was on its designated route and
had merely halted at the alleged place, as the driver had stopped
to meet someone en route. It is also submitted that the tanker
was fully calibrated and all seals were found intact. The Deputy
Controller of Explosives had duly issued the licence for
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
transportation of Class-A and Class-B petroleum products and the
tanker was operating strictly in accordance with the said licence.
4. It is submitted that the present FIR has been registered
despite the fact that there was no violation of the provisions of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or any provision of the BNS. It is
contended that merely because the vehicle was found standing on
a ‘kachha’ road, the same by itself does not constitute any offence
under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act or under
Section 287 of the BNS.
5. It is also submitted that the FIR contains contradictory
statements regarding the movement of the vehicle at the time it
was intercepted by the police.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a reply along with the
report of investigation dated 03.12.2025. It is submited that
although all the documents were found to be intact and even
during the course of investigation no tampering with the seals of
the tanker was found, nevertheless, the vehicle was found
standing on a ‘kachha’ road. It is contended that since the tanker
was carrying inflammable petroleum product and was found near
an ‘abadi’ area, such act amounts to endangering human life and
thus attracts the provisions of Section 287 of the BNS, and offence
under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act is also
made out.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
8. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public
Prosecutor and has also gone through the contents of the FIR and
the reply filed by the State.
9. A reading of the FIR reveals that the tanker was intercepted
near village Janglu while transporting Distilled Marine Oil. All
relevant documents, including permits and e-way bills, were
produced and no deficiency in the same has been found. The seals
of the compartments of the tanker were also found intact. Further,
the reply submitted by the State as well as the report of
investigation clearly reveal that all documents were verified and
found to be valid upon investigation from the owner of the seized
vehicle as well as the ordering firm. The FIR does not disclose
violation of any licensing or control orders and a mere reference to
violation of Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act has
been made, whereas the tanker was carrying all valid documents.
10. The prosecution has attempted to make out a case that since
the tanker was found on an unpaved road near village Janglu, the
same amounts to negligent conduct with respect to combustible
material, as it was allegedly taken through an ‘abadi’ area away
from the main road. It is not disputed by the parties that village
Janglu lies adjacent to the highway connecting Kandla to Haryana.
As per the FIR, the tanker was found stationed approximately two
kilometers away from the main road on a ‘kachha’ road. On the
basis of the said facts, the police agency has sought to invoke
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, treating the act
as negligent so as to endanger human life.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that even if
all the requisite documents have been found to be valid and intact,
the offence under Section 287 of the BNS would nevertheless be
attracted. It is contended that the act of the petitioner in halting
the Tanker carrying highly inflammable petroleum product on a
‘kachha’ road situated near an ‘abadi’ area amounts to negligent
conduct so as to endanger human life and safety. Section 287 of
the BNS reads as follows:-
“287. Negligent conduct with respect to fire or
combustible matter.–Whoever does, with fire or any
combustible matter, 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 knowingly or negligently omits to take
such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his
possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable
danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.”
12. The High Court of Allahabad, in Chamman Lal v. State,
reported in MANU/UP/0103/1954, has observed that an
essential requirement of Section 287 of the Indian Penal Code is
that the accused must have done some act involving fire or any
combustible substance in a rash or negligent manner so as to
endanger human life. The concept of a “rash and negligent act”
has been further elaborated by the Allahabad High Court in the
said judgment as under:
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]“6. Rashness and negligence are not the same things.
Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness.
There are degrees of negligence and rashness, and, In
order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal
negligence, one must find that the rashness has been of
such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowingly
that the hazard was of such a degree that Injury was most
likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in
running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and
indifference to the consequences, criminal negligence is a
gross and culpable neglect, that is to say, a failure to
exercise that care and failure to take that precaution
which, having regard to the circumstances. It was the
imperative duty of the individual to take. Culpable
rashness is acting with consciousness that mischievous
consequences are likely to follow although the individual
hopes, even though he hopes sincerely, that such
consequences may not follow. The criminality lies in not
taking the precautions to prevent the happening of the
consequences in the hope that they may not happen. The
law does not permit a man to be uncautious on a hope
however earnest or honest that hope may be.”
13. Again, in Tika Ram v. Rex, reported in
MANU/UP/0112/1950, the High Court of Allahabad has
explained the scope and meaning of a “rash and negligent act”.
Although the said case pertained to an offence under Section 304-
A of the Indian Penal Code, the observations made therein are
relevant to the present case. The Court has observed as under:-
“5. Section 304A, Penal Code, runs as follows:
“Whoever causes the death of any
person by doing any rash or negligent
act not amounting to culpable homicide
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extent to two years, or with fine, or
with both.”
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
6. This section obviously does not apply to cases where
there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the
act done will in all probability cause death. It only applies
to cases in which, without any such intention or
knowledge, death is caused by what is described as a
‘rash’ or ‘negligent’ act. A negligent act is an act done
without doing something which a reasonable man, guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or an act which a
prudent or reasonable man would not do in the
circumstances attending it. A rash act Is a negligent act
done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which
rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed
that In rashness the action is done precipitately with the
consciousness that the mischievous or Illegal
consequences may follow, but with a hope that they win
not. But, it is not necessary that there should always be
this consciousness in a rash act. It has also been observed
that in negligence there Is no such consciousness of the
consequences. This is also untrue as the observation of
Lord Atkin quoted hereafter will show.”
14. Therefore, for the purpose of fastening liability under Section
287 of the BNS (pari materia to Section 285 IPC), it must be
established that the accused himself acted in such a rash or
negligent manner as to endanger human life. Alternatively, it must
be shown that the accused omitted to take such order with any
fire or combustible material in his possession as was sufficient to
guard against any probable danger to human life.
15. The existence of a rash or negligent act has to be examined
in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present
case, the allegations emerging from the FIR against the petitioner
are that an offence under Section 287 BNS is made out on the
ground that the tanker was found stationed at a deserted location
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
on an unpaved road (kucha sadak), and that it had allegedly
passed through an ‘abadi’ area, deviating from the main route.
16. As noticed herein-above, the tanker was parked in a deserted
area, neither within nor even in the immediate vicinity of any
‘abadi area’, and was situated approximately two kilometers away
from the main road. The seals of the tanker were found intact,
and there is no allegation that the petitioner was emptying,
transferring, or otherwise mishandling the petroleum product.
There is also no material on record to indicate any leakage, unsafe
handling, or the existence of any imminent risk to public safety.
17. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have
acted with such rashness as to have knowingly taken a risk likely
to cause injury, nor can it be held that he was guilty of criminal
negligence by failing to exercise the care and precautions which,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was his duty to
observe.
18. Merely transporting or passing through or near an ‘abadi’ or
populated area, without anything more, by itself would not make
the act of the petitioner rash and negligent so as to endanger
human life. The act attributed to the petitioner cannot be said to
constitute a rash or negligent act within the meaning of Section
287 BNS. In such circumstances the ingredients of the offence
under Section 287 BNS are clearly absent in the FIR.
19. Further, as submitted herein-above and as is evident from
the FIR as well as the factual report dated 03.12.2025, the
petitioner was in possession of a valid license, valid permits and all
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
requisite documents. There is no allegation of any tampering with
the tanker and all its seals were found intact. Moreover, the tanker
was on its designated route and merely because the driver had
gone to meet someone in Village Janglu, which is adjacent to the
main road, it cannot be inferred that the tanker had deviated from
its route or that the petroleum product was being transported
illegally in violation of the provisions of Section 3(2)(d) of the
Essential Commodities Act. In view of the same, it is evident that
the tanker in question was lawfully transporting Marine Oil with all
valid permits, licenses and statutory documents.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs
Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down
the principles under which this Court can exercise powers to quash
the FIR. The relevant portion of the said judgment is hereunder:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations
made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can
ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
21. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) have consistently been
followed in a catena of subsequent judgments. Recently, the Apex
Court in Guru Kanwarpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam & Ors.
(SLP (Crl.) No. 5485/2025) and in B.N. John v. State of U.P.
& Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 4, has reiterated that where the
allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of any
offence, the same is liable to be quashed.
22. Hence, upon a careful reading of the impugned FIR, this
Court finds that the allegations, even if taken at their face value
and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients
of the offences punishable under Section 287 of the BNS or under
Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of law. Accordingly, the impugned FIR and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be
quashed.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13486] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-9130/2025]
23. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed
and FIR No.231/2025 registered at Police Station Panchu, District
Bikaner for the offences under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 287 of the BNS, 2023 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
24. The investigation agency is hereby directed to forthwith
release the seized vehicle/tanker along with the marine oil to the
petitioner or its owner.
25. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
15-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 02:23:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:41:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
