Dismissed

Neeraj Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2021CRL.P/7048/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by two petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The Court held that it cannot quash the proceedings at this stage as the allegations warrant a full trial by the Magistrate. It is the Magistrate's role to assess the integrity of the complaint, not this Court in a quashing petit

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.3875/2017 is dismissed.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.P.7048/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

CRL.P.No.7048/2019

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Neeraj Kumar, S/o Ish Kumar, Aged 44 years, Occupier of M/s Hector Beverages Private Limited, Having its factory at No.8 and 9, Kadakola Industrial Area, Mysuru - 571 311.

¶10

And residing at 194, Prestige Ozone, Whitefield Main Road, Varthur Kodi, Bengaluru - 560 066.

¶11

Lochan Mathur S/o Girish Mathur, Aged 34 years, Manager of M/s Hector Beverages Private Limited, Having its factory at No.8 and 9, Kodakola Industrial Area, Mysuru - 571 311. And residing at B204, Vaswani Pinnacle Apartments, Whitefield Main Road, Narayanappa Garden, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 560 066. ..PETITIONERS

¶12

(By Miss Maitreyi Kannur, Adv. for Sri Gerald Manoharan Adv., )

CRL.P.7048/2019

AND :

State of Karnataka, By Assistant Director of Factories-Mysuru Division 2, No.1, 1^st Main, Yadavagiri Industrial Area, Mysuru - 570 020.

¶17

..RESPONDENT

¶18

(By Sri Rahul Rai.K, HCGP)

¶19

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the complaint dated 08.08.2017 filed against the petitioners before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Mysuru (Annexure-A) and the subsequent proceedings in C.C.No.3875/2017 on the file of the II-Additional I-Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (Annexure-B).

¶20

This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Miss Maitreyi Kannur, learned Counsel for the petitioner has appeared through video conference and representing Sri Gerald Manoharan, learned Counsel on record. Learned HCGP is present before the Court physically.

¶23

Petitioners, who are accused nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.3875/2017 pending on the file of II Addl. JMFC at Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the

¶24

CRL.P.7048/2019

¶25

¶26

Factories Act, arising out of the complaint filed by the complainant/Assistant Director of Factories, Mysuru Division, under Section 200 Cr.PC, have approached this court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case.

¶27

Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are, that the complainant/respondent has filed a complaint on 08.08.2017 alleging that on 09.05.2017, due to failure on the part of the accused to provide earth leakage circuit relays/overload relays in the electrical switch boards which was totally risky/unsafe and incorrect, which resulted in the fatal accident and death of Sri VaradarajuUtility Operator.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint even if it is taken at face value and accepted in its entirety, does not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners herein. She submits that the petitioners have

¶29

CRL.P.7048/2019

¶30

¶31

submitted a detailed response dated 02.08.2017 in reply to the show cause notice and without considering the same, the respondent has proceeded to file the complaint without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. She, therefore, prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Learned HCGP opposes the petition contending that the fatal accident has taken place in the factory premises which is occupied and run by the petitioners, which has resulted in the death of an employee. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie makes out a case against the petitioners for having failed

¶33

to comply with the safety measures in the factory premises. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶34

I have heard the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

The complaint allegations are basically with regard to failure on the part of the accused to provide earth leakage

¶36

CRL.P.7048/2019

¶37

¶38

circuit relays/overload relays in the electrical switch boards which was totally risky/unsafe and incorrect, which has resulted in the fatal accident and death of an employee. This Court in exercise of its discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.PC cannot conduct an inquiry into the allegations lugged in the complaint. It is the Magistrate who has to decide the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in a full-fledged trial. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere in the proceedings and quash the same having regard to the nature of allegations in the complaint. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Neeraj Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ashokrao Jagathap Vs State of Karnataka

Nandita Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Ganesh Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Chikkanna H C Vs Sri. H T Channaiah

Smt. Parvathamma Vs State by Mahadevapura

Atul Auto Limtied Vs the State of Karnataka