Mallikarjun K. and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 15/2014 registered against them for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

The 2nd respondent served, remained absent.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional SPP for Respondent No. 1 and perused the records.

The records disclose that on 12.10.2011 at about 10.00 a.m. one Sri Irappa, the Executive Engineer attached to M/s. Raichur Thermal Power Station informed the factories inspector over telephone under section 8(1) of Factories Act 1948 about a fire incident taken place at BM-I Unit-2 Boiler elliptical door on the same day at 09.10 a.m. caused burn injuries to eight workers. The office of the Factories Inspector also received a notice of dangerous occurrence, in Form No. 17 on 15.10.2011 mentioning about the incident. The Factories Inspector also received an intimation regarding the death of one Zindavali, a contract worker. On receipt of the such information, he inspected the spot and he found on his enquiry about the said incident and after holding discussion with the coworkers and the management of the factory and also investigating the matter, he found the incident happened due to the negligence of accused by name Bhasker, the Executive Director and occupier of M/s. Raichur Thermal Power Corporation and other accused by name Chandrakant Dhondiba Chief Engineer and the factory manager of M/s. Raichur Thermal Power Station, Shakti Nagar, Raichur District. Accordingly lodged a private complaint against them before the Principal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur, registered in C.C. No. 25/2012. It is quite notable that in the said complaint there is no whisper so far as the involvement of the petitioners herein. The petitioners are also attached to the said Raichur Thermal Power Station. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were working as Executive Engineers. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 were working as Assistant Engineer in the said Corporation. Even in the said complaint there is no sort of allegations made against these petitioners. The said complaint filed by factory inspector was proceeded with by the learned Magistrate. During the pendency of the said case, one M. Zakir Ahmed, a Contractor has appeared before the Court and pleaded that due to his mistake the incident has happened and he pleaded guilty for the offences punishable under Rule 84 of Karnataka Factories Rules 1969 r/w Sections 7A(1) and 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. On hearing the said impleaded accused, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.03.2013 came to the conclusion that the said person i.e., M. Zakir Ahmed, Contractor was responsible for the incident and imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Rule 84 of Karnataka Factories Rules 1969 r/w Sections 7A(1) and 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and consequently discharged accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein for the above alleged offences.

Be that as it may, under the Factories Act complaint has been lodged on the basis of a particular cause of action narrating the happening of a specific incident against some of the accused therein and one of the accused in C.C. No. 25/2012 has been convicted and other accused persons have been discharged. It appears the police on the basis of the first information lodged by respondent No. 2 regarding the same incident, initiated independent proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 287, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC by registering a criminal case in Crime No. 83/2011 and subsequently, after investigation charge sheet appears to have been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur, which is registered in C.C. No. 15/2014 and these petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 and it appears they were released on bail in the said case.

Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argues before the Court that when once the incident takes place inside a factory, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and submit any charge sheet under the Indian Penal Code because under the Factories Act the Factory Inspector is competent to investigate the matter and submit a private complaint before the Magistrate. Secondly, he contended that once on the same cause of action on which the incident has taken place has been tried by the competent authorities and the case has been disposed of there cannot be any further proceedings on the same cause of action. In this regard, he relies upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 1881/2008. Vide order dated 27.08.2008, this Court has observed in the following manner:

"3. The submission of the learned counsel, Sri Baburao Mangane, for the petitioners is that in respect of the very same incident that took place on 30.11.2007, in the establishment of M/s. ACC Limited at Wadi when the accident occurred, following a part of the hopper coming down and fell on some of the workers, who where working on the installation leading to three persons sustaining bleeding injuries and breathed their last, already a complaint has been lodged by the Factory Inspector and the case is pending in CC No. 95/2008 on the file of the learned JMFC, Chittapura, and the proceedings against the petitioners in respect of the very same incident under general law i.e. IPC does not arise. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the ruling of the Jharkhand High Court reported in 2007 LLR 886.

Having regard to the aforesaid submission made and upon hearing the learned Government Pleader for the State and the ruling referred to by the petitioners'' counsel stating that the special law prevails over general law, but both shall not run concurrently for the same cause of action and the Court also having that where in respect of occurrence within factory premises, the Factory Inspector is competent to file complaint, and when the case is pending under the provision of Factories Act, the proceedings under general law i.e. IPC is not sustainable.

In the case on hand, the situation, is more or less similar, inasmuch as, in respect of the very same incident, already compliant is filed by the Factory Inspector and the case is pending before the learned JMFC, Chittapur, in CC No. 95/2008. Therefore applying the aforesaid ruling, in the case on hand, the proceedings under general law i.e., IPC is not warranted and as such, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of trial Court taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners stands set aside."

It is abundantly made clear from the above observations by this Court relying upon the decision of Jharkhand High Court reported in 2007 LLR 886, in my opinion also when once the criminal complaint has been lodged by the Factory Inspector, the police loses their jurisdiction to investigate the same matter and file separate charge sheet arising out of the same incident. Moreover, as I have already referred, there is no semblance of material available against these petitioners at the earliest point of time when the Factory Inspector has filed charge sheet in C.C. No. 25/2012. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if these proceedings are allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Criminal Proceedings in C.C. No. 15/2014 and all further proceedings in the said case pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur, against the petitioners is hereby quashed.