DIPEN PARIKH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS No. 1 and 2 are Directors and petitioner No. 3 is Manager of a company called M/s. Metco Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, who have come up for quashing the F.I.R. of case crime No. 223 of 2004, under Sections 285, 287, 304A I.P.C. and 3/5 Explosive Substances Act, PS. Link Road, District Ghaziabad and for staying their arrest in consequence of the said F.I.R. A copy of the F.I.R. is Annexure 11 to the writ petition lodged by respondent No. 2 consequent upon a fatal explosion erupting from metal scrap in Bhushan Steel and Scrap Ltd., Ghaziabad, imported by it from Dubai through the petitioners. The blast killed and injured several labourers working there. The informant was one of the injured.

(2.) THE averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioners only worked as commission agents between the buyers and sellers for supply of industrial raw materials to various steel plants throughout the country on behalf of suppliers/producers around the world and had been providing their services to Bhushan Group of company also for the last about eight years. In the month of July 2004, the petitioners' company, as agents, negotiated between Bhushan Industries (hereinafter referred to as “the buyer”) and M/s. Lucky Metals FZE with its registered office at Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, (UAE) - hereinafter referred to as “the seller”), for sale/purchase of metal scraps. An agreement was arrived at between the buyer and seller on 10 -7 -2004, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby 1000MT Heavy Melting Scraps (HMS) 1 and 2 @ US $ 239/MT CIF basis was to be sold by the seller to the buyer. The petitioners were only to get commission from the seller. After the finalisation of the contract, the petitioners” company was nowhere involved with physical movement of the goods from the seller to the buyer. Petitioners' company was only involved upto the stage of negotiations and fixing the rate between the two. The quantity, quality, transportation, handling, payment of dues including the instalments, sales tax, etc. were settled between the buyer and seller directly. Transportation / shipment of the said scrap material was directly done and arranged by the seller from the load port to the discharge port and as such they are in no way concerned with the complained explosion.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned A.G.A. has argued that the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence of serious magnitude and it is immaterial that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. The offence has wide ramifications and investigation would naturally take some time to examine all the angles of the matter. According to him, there is no ground whatsoever to stay the arrest of the petitioners, as prayed by them.