MP High Court Quashes Scrapyard Blast Case Against Owner’s Father, Says Family Ties Cannot Prove Guilt

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the father of a scrapyard owner in a deadly 2024 explosion case in Jabalpur, holding that family ties and alleged general instructions to workers cannot, by themselves, make a person criminally liable for deaths caused by a blast.

Justice Himanshu Joshi allowed a petition by Mohd. Shamim Khan under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No. 513/2024 of Police Station Adhartal. The case invokes Sections 304, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

According to the prosecution, an explosion on 25 April 2024 at Raza Metal Industries, a scrapyard in Village Chanti, killed Bholaram Bhumiya and Mohd. Khalil and injured two others. It was alleged that the scrap included demolished ammunition procured from the Long Proof Range, Khamaria, and that its unsafe handling caused the blast. The petitioner is the father of co-accused Mohd. Faheem Khan, the yard’s proprietor.

Advocate Sunil Kumar Pandey, for the petitioner, argued that Shamim Khan was falsely implicated merely for being the proprietor’s father. Revenue records, permissions, GST and Udyam registrations all stood in Faheem Khan’s name, he said, while the petitioner had lived in Nagpur for over five years and was not a party to the 2023 agreements under which the scrap was procured.

Government Advocate A.S. Baghel, for the State, opposed the plea. The State alleged suppression of earlier proceedings, including two anticipatory bail applications and two quashment petitions, and objected that the affidavit was sworn by the petitioner’s brother-in-law. It relied on workers’ statements that he issued instructions at the yard and allegedly offered one worker Rs 5 lakh and a job, said he left India on 29 April 2024, and described him as a history-sheeter with 18 cases, which the petitioner disputed.

On the preliminary objections, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab to hold that earlier petitions withdrawn without liberty do not bar a fresh one, since res judicata does not apply to criminal proceedings. It added that the rejection of anticipatory bail did not prevent it from independently examining whether the proceedings were an abuse of process, noting that a coordinate Bench had granted interim protection on 16 April 2026.

The Court termed the affidavit defect “essentially a procedural irregularity”, noting the State had shown no prejudice, though it confined this finding to the facts of the case.

On the merits, the Court observed that official documents named Faheem Khan as the person concerned with the business and premises, and that the 2023 agreements were not shown to have been executed by the petitioner. Even taking the workers’ statements at face value, it said, “mere presence at the premises, familial relationship with the proprietor, or giving general instructions to workers” could not establish the offences. “Criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a person merely because of his relationship with another accused,” the Court said.

It also noted that the prosecution had not sought to have those statements recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Statements under Section 161, it said, “are part of investigation and are not substantive evidence”. The absence of corroboration “assumes significance”.

The Bench found no material showing the petitioner’s role in procuring, possessing, storing or handling explosives, or any act directly linked to the deaths.

Acknowledging the loss of two lives, Justice Joshi said “seriousness of the offence cannot dispense with the requirement of material connecting the particular accused with the alleged criminal acts”. Concluding that “continuation of criminal proceedings against him would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law”, the Court quashed the proceedings insofar as Shamim Khan is concerned.

The order, the Court clarified, remains confined to the petitioner and will not affect the investigation, prosecution or trial of any other accused.

Case Title: Mohd. Shamim Khan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Order Date: September 21, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi