M.C.JAIN, J. - (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. We have heard Sri Viresh Misra, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners at length and Sri Surendra Singh learned A.G.A. from the side of the State in opposition. Laying stress on the aforesaid averments and referring to the various annexures annexed with the writ petition, Sri Misra has urged that by any stretch of imagination the petitioners were not involved in the commission of any offence emerging from the alleged explosion from imported cargo It has also been urged by him that they are not named in the FIR either. Another submission of Sri Misra is that in Criminal Misc. Win Petition No. 8303 of 2004 filed by two other petitioners (Executive Director of K.M.S. Cargo Pvt. Ltd New Delhi and an employee and authorised representative of the said company) another Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble A.K. Yog and Hon'ble M.P. Singh, JJ partly allowed the writ petition and stayed the arrest of the said petitioners till the filing of the charge -sheet. He submitted that the present petitioners also deserve to be treated in the like manner as the matter is common arising out of the same F.I.R. Yet another argument of Sri Misra is that this petition earlier came up before a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli and Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ. on 15 10.2004 and it was directed to be put up on 26 -10 -2004 to enable the learned A.G. A. to obtain instructions as regards the material available against the petitioners and their arrest was stayed till 26 -10 -2004. The Sri Misra has reasoned that the prosecution has not put forth any material showing involvement of the petitioners in this crime, He has, thus, urged that it is a fit case for the stay of the arrest of the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in the case.
(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.;