A K Mishra Alias Awadh Kishore Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2025:JHHC:33528)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

------

1. A. K. Mishra @ Awadh Kishore Mishra, aged about 60 years, son of Nagina Mishra, residing at G.M. Bungalow, Jhanjra, Laudoha, PO, PS & District – Barddhwaman, PIN – 713385 (West Bengal).

¶5

2. S. K. Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, son of late Ramjee Singh, residing at Office of the General Manager, PO & PS – Charhi, District – Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶6

3. Ajay Kumar Singh, aged about 58 years, son of late Matukdhari Singh, residing at Office of the Project Officer, PO & PS – Tapin, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶7

4. Anil Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Ram Prawesh Singh, residing at Ofice of the Project Officer, PO & PS – Tapin, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶8

5. Govind Bajpai, aged about 39 years, son of Shri Rama Shankar Bajpai, residing at Office of the Project Officer, PO & PS – Tapin, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

2. Ujjwal Tah, Director of Mines Safety & Inspector of Mines, Ranchi Region, Ranchi, RI-III Building, CMPDI Campus, Kanke Road, PO – Ranchi University, PS – Gonda, District – Ranchi, PIN – 834004, Jharkhand. … Opp. Parties

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. For the UOI : Mr. Sunil Kumar, CGC

¶13

------

¶14

P R E S E N T

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶17

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶18

¶19

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

¶20

(2025:JHHC:33528)

¶21

Procedure, with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G. (Mines Safety) Case No. 31 of 2018 including the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 72A, 72C (1) (a) & (b) as well as Section 73 of the Mines Act and passed the summoning order.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. It is next submitted that even if the allegation made against these petitioners are considered to be true, still no offence is made out against them, as the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver by road grader machine because of which the vehicle operator lost his control. It is further submitted that the concerned operator of the machine has unauthorizedly attempted to park the vehicle in the place as per his convenience within the premises of workshop / mines, which is not authorized for parking.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G. N. Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2014) 2 SCC 282 wherein, in the facts of that case, the said G. N. Verma was alleged to be the Chief General Manager and the complainant did not contend any allegation specific or otherwise against the said G. N. Verma. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that there is no basis for proceeding under Section 72-B of the Mines Act and quashed the complaint.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Md. Fasiuddin &

¶25

¶26

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

¶27

(2025:JHHC:33528)

¶28

Others Vs. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Another with allied cases reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 575 , wherein in the facts of that case, when a prosecution was launched against the petitioner before the Court for having committed the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act as well as Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, a coordinate bench of this Court considering that the petitioners before this Court were made accused only being the officials of the TISCO; wherein the allegation was only against TISCO and there were no specific allegation in the prosecution against the petitioners; held that the prosecution is not maintainable and quashed the criminal proceeding. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶29

6. The learned Addl. P.P. as well as learned C.G.C. vehemently oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the requirement of Section 72-B is entirely different from the requirement under Section 72A, 72C and 73 of the Mines Act. Further, unlike the case of G. N. Verma (supra) herein, there is a direct and specific allegation against these petitioners that petitioner no. 1 was the nominated owner, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were the agents and the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 respectively being manager and colliery engineers / project engineers (excavation) of Tapin North OCPO (Open Class Project of Central Coal Fields Ltd.), they were bound to see whether the mining operations were conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, rules, regulations and orders made thereunder but still all of them in connivance with each other conjointly committed the offences punishable under Sections 72A, 72C(1) (a) and (b) as well as 73 of the Mines Act; by failing to mitigate the

¶30

¶31

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

¶32

(2025:JHHC:33528)

¶33

risk of accident due to lack of adequate and specified parking space for heavy earth moving machineries, inside the workshop / mines and to implement the controlling measures for parking the road grader machine inside the premises, as part of the safety management plan and thus, negligently and willfully endangered the life of the persons employed in the mines and for not providing and maintaining adequate suitable rest shelter in the workshop / mines. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that the petitioners are responsible to see whether mining was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Mines Act and also the undisputed fact remains that they failed to mitigate the risk of lack of adequate and specified parking space for heavy earth moving machineries inside the workshop / mines.

¶34

7. Further, the contention of the petitioners that the operator of the road grader machine was negligent, is only a defence of the petitioners and the same can only be taken during the trial of the case but in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot consider the defence of the petitioners when the prosecution is yet to put forth and complete its evidence in the trial.

¶35

8. Learned counsel for the C.G.C. relies upon the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Nageshwar Sharma Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in (2016) 4 JLJR 526 and submits that therein a co-ordinate bench considering the evidence of PW 1 of that case in which it was testified that there was violation at the hands of the authorities and negligence in the part of the petitioners, the co-ordinate bench did not find any merit in the said criminal revision and dismissed it.

¶36

¶37

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

¶38

(2025:JHHC:33528)

¶39

9. It is lastly submitted that the materials available on record are sufficient to establish each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned S.D.J.M. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶40

10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials available on record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they were under an obligation to ensure that the mining operations are conducted in the Tapen North OCP (Open Caste Project) strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, rules, regulations and orders made therein. The petitioners have, nowhere in the criminal miscellaneous petition disputed the said allegations made in the complaint against them. There is direct and specific allegation against these petitioners that the petitioners in connivance with each other have conjointly committed the offences punishable under Sections 72A, 72 (C) (1) (a) and (b) as well as Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952, in contravention of regulation 104(4) and (8) read with DGMS circular (technical no. 8 of 2003), regulation 239 of the Coal Mines Regulation, 2017, Section 18 (4) and (5) of the Mines Act, 1952, Rules 62 and 63 of the Mines Rules, 1955 of the said provisions with others, failed to mitigate the risk of accident due to lack of adequate and specified parking space for heavy earth moving machinery inside the workshop / mines and also failed to implement the controlling measures for parking the road grader machine inside the premises as part of safety management plan and thus negligently and wilfully endangered the life of the persons employed in the workshop / mines. There is further allegation

¶41

¶42

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

¶43

(2025:JHHC:33528)

¶44

against these petitioners for not providing and maintaining suitable rest shelter in the workshop / mines.

¶45

11. Perusal of this criminal miscellaneous petition reveals that there is no specific denial of allegation against these petitioners. The contention of the petitioners that the operator of the road grader machine acted rashly and negligently, is at best the defence of the petitioners but the same cannot be considered at this stage when the prosecution is yet to adduce evidence in the trial.

¶46

12. So far as the judgement of G. N. Verma (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of this case; as in that case there were no specific allegation against the petitioners of that case. Further, the petitioner of that case was a deemed agent of the mine. Petitioner no. 2 and 3 of this case are undisputedly the agents, so in the considered opinion of this court, the ratio of the case of G. N. Verma (supra) which relates to the offence punishable under Section 72B of the Mines Act; as the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of this case, the ratio of that case is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶47

13. So far as the judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Md. Fasiuddin & Others Vs. The State of Bihar & Another (supra) is concerned, the offences involved in that case were punishable under Indian Forest Act and Forest Conservation Act. There was no liability of any nominated owner agent under penal provisions of the Indian Forest Act or Forest Conservation Act. Moreover, in that case, the allegation of committing the offence was against TISCO. Unlike this case, where the allegations of failing to mitigate the risk of an accident, due to lack of

¶48

¶49

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

¶50

(2025:JHHC:33528)

¶51

adequate and specific parking space for heavy earth moving machinery inside the workshop / mines and to implement the controlling measures for working the road grader machine inside the workshop / mines is part of the safety management plan and thus, negligently and willingly endangered the life of the persons employed in the workshop / mines and not providing and maintaining adequate rest shelters in the workshop / mines was directed against the petitioners which has not yet been denied in the criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶52

14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, the offences in respect of which the prima facie case has been found by the learned S.D.J.M. is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case for the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition, be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶53

15. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit, is dismissed .

¶54

16. In view of the disposal of this Cr.M.P., Interlocutory Applications, pending, if any, is disposed of being infructuous and interim relief granted earlier, if any, is vacated.

¶55

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶56

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10^th of November, 2025 AFR/ Aditi

¶57

¶58

Cr. M. P. No. 445 of 2019

A K Mishra Alias Awadh Kishore Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A K Mishra Alias Awadh Kishore Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akash Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Zillion Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Sh Anant Saxena And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gaytree Devi Alias Gayatri Kumari Prasad Alias Gayatree Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand