Mr U K Farooq Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAJPE POLICE STATION MANGALORE-REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

MR HASANUR MANDAL AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O KUDUS ALI MANDAL RESIDING AT HADIPUR CHUPRIJHAR VILLAGE NORTH DISTRICT 24 PARAGANS DENGANG P S WEST BENGAL-743424 PRESENTLY WORKING AT

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

M/S SHREE ULKA LLP MZEZ PERMUDE VILLAGE MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU CITY DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001

¶23

&RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1

¶25

V/O DT. 7/1/26, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.52/2022 OF BAJPE POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 337, 338, 304 AND 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE JMFC VI COURT, MANGALORE CITY DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO. 4 IS CONCERNED.

¶27

IN WP NO. 8879/2022

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

M/S. SREE ULKA LLP A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR RAJU GORAKH ROHAKALE S/O MR GORAKH MARUTI ROHAKALE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT C/901/9, SAI RADIANCE PLOT NO.59, 60, 61 SECTOR 15 CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI KONKAN BHAVAN, THANE MAHARASTHRA - 400 614

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAJPE POLICE STATION, BAJPE REPRESENTED BY SPP

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶38

HASANUR MANDAL S/O KUDUS ALI MANDAL AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS HADIPUR, CHUPRIJHAR VILLAGE NORTH DISTRICT, 24 PARAGANS DENGANG P.S., WEST BENGAL-743424 PRESENTLY WORKING AT M/S SHREE ULKA LLP COMPANY, MSEZ, PERMUDE VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALUR CITY DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1

¶41

R2-SD/-)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.52/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC VI COURT MANGALORE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 337, 338, 304 R/W 34 OF IPC BY R-1 AND FIR IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,

¶43

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶44

ORAL COMMON ORDER

¶45

The petitioner in WP.No.8879/2022 being accused No.1, and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4548/2022 being accused No.4 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.52/2022 by Bajpe Police Station, registered

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), pending on the file of the learned JMFC VI Court, Mangalore.

¶49

Heard Sri. P P Hedge, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Ganapath Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4548/2022, Sri. Sachin B S, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.8879/2022 and Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

¶50

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶51

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶52

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶53

REASONS

¶54

Accused No.1 is said to be the Managing Partner of Limited Liability Partnership Firm by name Shree Ulka LLP and

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

accused No.4 is the Supervisor. It is stated that on 17.04.2022 at 18:10 hours, a mishap had occurred in fish processing factory owned by the partnership firm, as result of which, three workers died and five were sustained injuries. It is alleged that the owner of the factory, Production Manager, Area Manager and Supervisor have not taken any precautionary measures for the safety of the workers, who were working in the dangerous condition, which has resulted in the mishap.

¶58

Initially, the Authorized Officer i.e., the Deputy Director of the factories filed the compliant as provided under Section 105 of the Factories Act, with the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, for contravention of various provisions under the said Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned accused Nos.1 and 2 by name Raju Gorakh Rohakale and Robi Joseph. Those accused have appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded guilty. Accordingly, as per the order dated 17.09.2022

¶59

both the accused were convicted for contravention of Sections 7A(2)(d), 7A(2)(e), 69, 62(1), 51, 54, 7(4) punishable under

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Section 92 of the Act, and they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have remitted fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each on the very same day i.e., on 17.09.2022.

¶64

It is the contention of learned Senior advocate for

¶65

the petitioners that even the compensation as required to be paid under the Factories Act is already paid to the victims or their family members as the case may be.

¶66

In the mean time, it is stated that, one of the victim lodged the Police Complaint alleging commission of the offences under the provisions of IPC i.e., for the offence punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, Bajpe Police registered the FIR on 17.04.2022 against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the investigation was undertaken.

¶67

It is the contention of learned Senior advocate for the petitioners that when Section 92 of the Factories Act is invoked, which is an exhaustive enactment governing the safety and protection of the workers in the factory and when

¶68

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the accused have already convicted and sentenced, a parallel proceedings under the provision of IPC would not lie. Learned Senior advocate placed reliance on the decision of this Court in

¶71

Ananthkumar V.s State Of Karnataka¹ where the Coordinate Bench of this Court considered a similar mishap occurred in the factory premises and formed an opinion that the police could not have registered a case alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 304A of IPC, when already a complaint as per Section 105 of the Factories Act was filed. Learned Senior advocate also placed reliance on the decision in G V Prasad V.s The State Through Raichur Rural PS²

¶72

where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court placing reliance on

¶73

Ananthkumar (supra), formed an opinion that in view of the prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act, parallel prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC is not permissible. Learned Senior advocate also drawn attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶74

in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Another V.S State Of Maharastra³ , where mishap had occurred in the factory

¶75

1 AIR Online 2019 KAR 565

¶76

2 Crl.P.No.200662/2024 DD 22.10.2024

¶77

3 2025 SCC Online SC 520

¶78

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

premises and it is alleged that accused persons have not taken proper care and precaution for the safety of the laborers by providing safety sheets, safety belt etc,. The Court has considered at length as to whether the offence under Section 304A or 304 part II of IPC could be invoked and held that no prima facie case can be said to be made out against the appellants therein for committing offence under Section 304-A of IPC as the deaths caused where purely accidental and moreover Section 304 part II IPC shall any way not apply as there was no knowledge on the part of the accused that the act committed will cause death of the employees.

¶81

In view of these consistent pronouncements, Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no prima facie materials to proceed against the accused for committing the offences under Section 304A or 304 part II of IPC, as the offence alleged under the provisions of IPC and the Factories Act are conspicuously same, even if the allegations made in the FIR is to be taken into consideration as it is. In view of the

¶82

various decisions referred to above, the position of law is very well settled. Under such circumstances, the allegations made in

¶83

9 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

the first information regarding mishap that had resulted in three death and injuries to other five cannot attract either Sections 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶87

In view of the admitted facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that none of the penal provisions under IPC could be invoked, when Section 92 of the Factories Act provides for general penalty for the offence punishable under the special enactment, which will prevail over the general provision under IPC.

¶88

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by prosecuting them. Hence, I am of the opinion that criminal case registered against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i) The petitions are allowed .

¶91

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the

¶94

petitioner being accused No.1 in WP.No.8879/2022, and the petitioner being accused No.4 in Crl.P.No.4548/2022 in crime No.52/2022 by Bajpe Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the learned JMFC VI Court, Mangalore, is hereby quashed.

¶95

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory application in WP.No.8879/2022 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed off.

¶96

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶97

PNV

¶98

CT:VS

¶99

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mr U K Farooq v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr U K Farooq v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Goms Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Cauvery Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Smt B C Shantha Vs State by

Smt. Kunti Devi Vs Deepu C G

Venkataramaiah Vs Smt Savithramma

S. Nirmal Choudhary @ Nirmal Soyal Vs State of Karnataka by Cottonpet Police Station

Minopharm Laboratories Vs the Drugs Inspector II