ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Instant Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner, seeking to quash FIR No.106/2012 registered at Police Station Chaupanki, District Alwar for offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 336 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 2. Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation on the impugned FIR has been carried out and thereafter, charge-sheet against other accused persons namely Sahoon, Pramod Kumar Singh, Saddam, Sitaram and Mr. Yakub have been filed but no incriminating evidence against the petitioner has been found, except that co-accused Mr. Sahoon made statements that the explosive material of Ammonium Nitrate was supplied by the petitioner, however investigation against petitioner has been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It has been contended that even if case of prosecution against the petitioner is taken as true, the recovered explosive substances i.e. Ammonium Nitrate does not fall in the category of explosive substances and not required any license for its storage or sale. It is only after promulgation of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 (for short "Rules of 2012") w.e.f. 11.07.2012, it has been held necessary to obtain a license for storage, possession or sale and use of Ammonium Nitrate but a grace period of 6 to 18 months is provided under Rule 5 to obtain the license. Therefore, as per Rules 2012, no case against the petitioner is make out before expiry of six months from the date of launching the Rules i.e. 11.07.2012, hence the involvement of petitioner in the impugned FIR, registered on 30.12.2012 is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and it is prima facie clear from investigation that, his involvement in the present FIR is wholly uncalled for, investigation against petitioner has been kept pending, therefore, the FIR as well as pending investigation against the petitioner deserves to be quashed to prevent abuse of process or otherwise for ends of justice. 4. 4. In counter, learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record, the progress report of investigation dated 08.05.2023 and pointed out that evidence against petitioner has been collected during course of investigation in the impugned FIR that recovered explosive substances were supplied by the petitioner-Mr. Jakaria Khan through his driver Mr. Nazeer in the vehicle TATA 407; driver of petitioner namely Mr. Nazeer received sale amount from accused Sahoon. It has revealed that explosive substances were supplied in the name of M/s Mewat Enterprises, Tawdu stating that he has license but in fact the address of M/s Mewat Enterprises was found fake and petitioner does not possess any license. It has revealed in the investigation that another FIR No.88/2013 at Police Station Tawdu was registered against Mr. Nazeer, driver of the petitioner while carrying explosive substances in vehicle TATA 407. Co-accused Sahoon has also divulged information under Section 27 of Evidence Act, to supply portion of explosive substances, recovered from two shops in the Raid on 30.12.2012 by the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it has come on record that explosive substances without having any license, were sold and supplied by the petitioner to accused Sahoon, Azmat and Kamal for using the same, for blasting in the Aravalli Hills and for the purpose of illegal mining of stones from the Aravalli Hills. Thus, criminal case for offence under Sections, 4, 5,6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Explosive Act, 1884 r/w Rule 4 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 has been held proved against the petitioner in the investigation; petitioner is on anticipatory bail and charge-sheet would be filed after obtaining consent from the concerned authority/District Magistrate as per provision of Section 7 of the Act, 1908. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that as many as 10 accused persons found involved in the present criminal case, 5 accused persons namely (1) Sahoon, (2) Pramod Kumar Singh, (3) Sadam, (4) Sitaram and (5) Yakub have been arrested and against them charge-sheet has been filed, other accused Kamal, Azmat, Nazeer have also been arrested; petitioner is on anticipatory bail and one accused Mr. Vijay Kumar Soni is absconding. Vijay Kumar Soni is absconding. Thus, he submits that involvement of petitioner in the present criminal case is well established in the investigation but consent of District Magistrate is awaited for filing charge-sheet, therefore, in such circumstances, the FIR and investigation against petitioner may not be quashed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this initial stage of proceedings. Contentions made by counsel for the petitioner are virtually plea of defence, which can be considered and appreciated on merits by the Trial Court, therefore, on the basis of such contentions, the FIR and investigation against petitioner are not liable to be quashed. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Factual matrix of the case, briefly stated, as culled out from the record is that on receiving an information, on 30.12.2012 Addl. SP Bhiwadi, District Alwar Mr. Anil Kayal made a search of two shops, situated at Udhanwas Crusher Zone, area situated nearby the Aravalli Hills. In this search, huge quantity of Ammonium Nitrate, 70 bags of 50 Kg each, 19 bags of 25 Kg, two cartoons of Detonator liquid explosive, explosive fuse (red wire) and (green wire), three cartoons of Neo Gel-90 etc. were found stored in the shops. Then, FIR No.106/2012 at PS Chaupanki, District Alwar was registered for offence under Sections 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short "the Act of 1908") and investigation was carried out. The recovered explosive substances were found to be stored by Mr. Azmat, Sahoon and one Kamal, for the purpose of using for blasting in the Aravalli Hills to make illegal mining of stones. Shops were found to be belong to Mr. Yakub and Mr. Sadam who had let out their shops to Sahoon, Azmat and Kamal knowing well to be used for storage of explosive substances illegally. In the investigation, it revealed that the recovered explosive substances were supplied from (1) Deepak Fertilizers, Raigarh, (2) Aagin Explosive, Nagpur (3) Regenesis, Hyderabad (4) Super Shivsakti, Chittaurgarh. 8. It appears from the record that the accused Sahoon and Azmat filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.993/2013, seeking to quash the FIR qua them stating inter alia that they have no concerned/nexus with the recovered explosive substances, however their petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 07.04.2014 with direction to continue the investigation, properly fairly and impartially, thereafter both have been arrested. Petition No.993/2013, seeking to quash the FIR qua them stating inter alia that they have no concerned/nexus with the recovered explosive substances, however their petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 07.04.2014 with direction to continue the investigation, properly fairly and impartially, thereafter both have been arrested. Accused Yakub also filed separate S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3387/2013 which also came to be disposed of vide order dated 07.04.2014 with similar nature of observations and he has also been arrested. Against accused Sahoon and Yakub, charge-sheet has also been filed. 9. As far as petitioner-Jakaria Khan is concerned, he has been found involved in the present case to supply/sell the explosive substances to accused Sahoon. Accused Sahoon has divulged such information under Section 27 of Evidence Act and has identified the house of petitioner-Jakaria Khan, where the deal was settled between them that house has been sold by petitioner-Jakaria Khan to one Mr. Javed. It has come on record that petitioner stated himself to be license holder to supply the explosive substances of Ammonium Nitrate being proprietor of M/s Mewat Enterprises, Tawdu but in the investigation, the address of Mewat Enterprises was found fake and no license with the petitioner was found. It has also revealed in the investigation that petitioner supplied the explosive substances through his driver Mr. Nazeer in vehicle TATA 407 who received the sale price from Sahoon, for and on behalf of petitioner, Mr. Nazeer is also one of the co-accused in the present case and against whom another FIR No. 88/2013 at PS Tawdu was also registered. Initially, Mr. Nazeer was absconding and arrest warrant was issued against him, but now he has been arrested on 13.06.2020. It has also been revealed in the investigation that the prohibitory order by the concerned District Magistrate, Nuh were issued, nevertheless petitioner stored and supplied the explosive substances, without license and that too in huge quantity. Thus, there is ample evidence against petitioner to establish his involvement in the present criminal case. The inherent powers by High Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 10. Thus, there is ample evidence against petitioner to establish his involvement in the present criminal case. The inherent powers by High Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 10. On the basis of such factual matrix and report of investigation, carried out so far in the present FIR, it may not be held at this stage that involvement of petitioner in the present criminal case is inherently improbable and there is no incriminating evidence against petitioner or he has been involved malafidely. As far as requirement of license under Rule 4 of Rules, 2012 is concerned, indisputably petitioner does not possess any license, nevertheless if he claims to have exemption from procuring a license for a period of six to eighteen months at the time of having a deal to supply/sell explosive substances of Ammonium Nitrate in the light of promulgation of Ammonium Nitrate rules, 2012 w.e.f. 11.07.2012, this itself is not sufficient ground to absolve the petitioner from any criminal liability at this initial stage and to quash the FIR as also investigation qua the petitioner. This point is connected with all explosive substances, including Ammonium Nitrate. 11. It is true that the petitioner has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but that does not lead to an absolute inference about non-involvement of petitioner in the case and to held that weigh of explosives and collusion of petitioner with other co-accused to support providing explosive for illegal mining in Aravalli Hills. Thus, having connection and nexus of petitioner, with other co-accused persons mainly Sahoon, FIR qua petitioner can not be quashed, assuming to have benefit of grace period to obtain license. However, petitioner would be at liberty to raise this plea before the Trial Court which may be considered by the Trial Court on merits. The impugned FIR and investigation against petitioner is not liable to be quashed, only on that ground. In the investigation, evidence against petitioner has come on record to supply/sell explosive substances to accused Mr. Sahoon and to receive sell price through his driver Mr. Nazeer, thus, prima facie, prosecution has found involvement of petitioner in committing offences under Section 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1884 r/w Rule 4 of the Act of 2012, and has held to establish such offences against petitioner, as well. Sahoon and to receive sell price through his driver Mr. Nazeer, thus, prima facie, prosecution has found involvement of petitioner in committing offences under Section 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1884 r/w Rule 4 of the Act of 2012, and has held to establish such offences against petitioner, as well. For ready reference, Section 6 & 7 of the Act of 1908 reads as under:- "6. Punishment of abettors.- Any person who by the supply of or solicitation for money, the providing of premises, the supply of materials, or in any manner whatsoever, procures, counsels, aids, abets or is accessory to, the commission of any offence under this Act shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. 7. Restriction on trial of offences.- No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate" Thus, despite establishment of offence against the petitioner, the consent of the concerned District Magistrate is necessary and in awaiting of consent, charge-sheet has not been filed so far, which is no ground to quash the proceedings qua petitioner. 12. The parameters of governing the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court bestowed by virtue of Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and have been reiterated in a consistent line of decisions of the Apex Court. Referring to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [2021 SCC Online SC 315], it can safely be held that the criteria and guidelines as expounded by the Supreme Court in celebrated two judgments delivered in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ] and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], governs the field and facts of the present case do not invite any of the criteria laid down in these judgments to exercise the inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and investigation against the petitioner. (1) SCC 335], governs the field and facts of the present case do not invite any of the criteria laid down in these judgments to exercise the inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and investigation against the petitioner. It is suffice to observe that contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner do not lead to an inference that no offence against petitioner is make out or petitioner has been involved in the present case malafidely with an ulterior motive or for wrecking any personal grudges. 13. This Court does not find the present case to be a fit case to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the FIR and investigation, which though are of wide amplitude but should be exercised exceptionally and only in rarest of the rare cases, to prevent abuse of process or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. No such exceptional case is make out in favour of petitioner to quash the impugned FIR against petitioner, by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. 14. As a final result, the present criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. 15. Let copy of this Order be sent to the concerned Police Station/Investigating Officer for information/record.