Smt. Mubashira Taj v. State O Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025CRL.P/7055/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 7055 of 2023; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice M.I.Arun; decided 21.11.2025; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; quashing of proceedings; C.C.No.60/2022; Section 92 Factories Act; Factories Act 1948; Lok Adalat settlement; occupier/partner and factory manager of M/s. Air Action Equipments; Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru; non-heinous offence; petition allowed; pending I.As. disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.60/2022 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore; pending I.As., if any, disposed of. ¶¶36

Smt. Mubashira Taj Vs State O Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.60/2022 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore; pending I.As., if any, disposed of.

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.60/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, should be quashed in view of the settlement between the claimants and the petitioners before the Lok Adalat.

¶¶22

Court's answer

The offences alleged against the petitioners are in respect of offences under the Factories Act, 1948 and are not heinous offences; further, the matter has been settled between the claimants and the petitioners before the Lok Adalat to the satisfaction of the claimants.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners subsequent to C.C.No.60/2022, which are pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, stand quashed.

¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition (CRL.P No. 7055 of 2023) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the Occupier/Partner and the Factory Manager of M/s. Air Action Equipments praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.60/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act (printed as 'Factories Act, 1988' in the cause title; described in the order as offences under the Factories Act, 1948), pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City. On 19.11.2025 the petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of learned counsel; on 21.11.2025 counsel submitted that the matter had been settled before the Lok Adalat and the petition ought to be allowed, the earlier withdrawal having been mentioned by mistake. The learned High Court Government Pleader raised no objection. Holding the offences under the Factories Act, 1948 to be non-heinous and noting the settlement reached before the Lok Adalat to the satisfaction of the claimants, the Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate and allowed the criminal petition; pending I.As., if any, were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47915 CRL.P No. 7055 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7055 OF 2023

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MUBASHIRA TAJ OCCUPIER/ PARTNER M/S. AIR ACTION EQUIPMENTS W/O TAJUDDIN BASHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶11

R/AT NO.2, K.NARAYANARAPURA ROAD, THANISANDRA SRK NAGAR POST BENGALURU-562 077.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. MIRZA ANSAR BAIG THE FACTORY MANAGER M/S. AIR ACTION EQUIPMENTS S/O MIRZA MAHABOOB BAIG AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.2, K.NARAYANARAPURA ROAD, THANISANDRA SRK NAGAR POST BENGALURU-562 077.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SPS KHADRI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47915 CRL.P No. 7055 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA AT THE INSTANCE OF SRI. K.N.SAFEER AHMED SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES, DIVISION-08 BANGALORE, II FLOOR KARMIKA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 029. REPRESENTATION BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.60/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 92 OF FACTORIES ACT, 1988 PENDING ON THE FILE OF BEFORE THE HON'BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT-I, MAYOHALL, M.G.ROAD AT BENGALURU CITY IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID COMPLAINT BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:47915 CRL.P No. 7055 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

On 19.11.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Relying on his submission the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶30

However, today learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been settled before Lok Adalat and the petition requires to be allowed in the light of it and by mistake it was mentioned that the same may be withdrawn.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader has no objection for allowing the petition as prayed for by the petitioners.

¶32

It is seen that the offences alleged against the petitioners is in respect of offences under Factories Act, 1948 and the same is not heinous offence. Further, it is seen that the matter has been settled between the claimants and the petitioners herein before the Lok Adalat to the satisfaction of the claimants.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47915 CRL.P No. 7055 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein subsequent to C.C.No.60/2022 which is pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore stand quashed.

¶36

6. The criminal petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶37

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶38

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶39

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Mubashira Taj v. State O Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mubashira Taj v. State O Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nasrulla Vs Sri Basavaraj Bhandare

Vijay Agarwal @ Vijay Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sundari Poojarthi W/O. Angara Poojari Vs Sri Nagappa Poojari S/O. Choova Poojari

K P Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vismitha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Poornima G Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police