Allowed

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs v. State Rep. by

Madras HC21 Dec 2021CRL OP/13076/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While directing the petitioners to quash complaints registered under the Factories Act, 1948, the High Court noted the department's decision to withdraw the cases. The Court prioritized this administrative withdrawal to prevent abuse of process, thus quashing the proceedings without separate analysis of the prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.Nos.35 and 36 of 2016 were quashed, and the Criminal Original Petitions were allowed.

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs Vs State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. Nos.13076 and 13079 of 2017

¶6

and CRL.M.P.Nos.8505 & 8506 of 2017 and 8509 & 8510 of 2017

¶7

Mr.Ajay Durrani S/o.Bansi Lal Durrani Occupier Bayer Material Sciences Pvt Ltd, Semmankuppam, Cuddalore. ...Petitioner in both O.Ps/Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Rep by

¶10

Joint Director Industrial Safety and Health Inspectorate of Factories (Incharge) Cuddalore. ...Respondent in both O.Ps/Comnplainant

¶11

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the complaint in C.C.Nos.35 and 36 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

¶12

For Petitioner in both O.Ps: Mr.D.Abdullah

¶13

For Respondent in both O.Ps: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt.Advocate(crl.side)

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the complaints in C.C.Nos.35 and 36 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

¶16

The private complaint has been filed by the respondent/ Factory Inspector (Incharge) for violations found during the inspection. Thereby, the prosecution has been

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

launched for the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 in C.C.No.35 of 2015 and Section 96(A) of the Factories Act, 1948 in C.C.No.36 of 2015. In such view of the matter, the alleged non compliance complained in C.C.No.36 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioner has not properly given training to the employees who are handling hazardous substances. Similarly, in C.C.No.35 of 2016 is concerned, they have not obtained permission from the Site Appraisal Committee while constructing the building.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the defects pointed out by the Inspector in C.C.No. 35 of 2016 and C.C.No.36 of 2016 have been complied with and the petitioner also sent a reply notice to the respondent.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that the Department itself has decided to withdraw the complaints and also sent a communication dated 21.12.2016 in this regard.

¶21

As the department itself has decided to withdraw the complaints, this Court is of the view, that there is no purpose in keeping this petition unnecessarily pending and continuing the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.Nos.35 and 36 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore as against the petitioner is quashed and as a sequel these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

nr/msv

¶25

¶26

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

¶27

The Joint Director Industrial Safety and Health Inspectorate of Factories (Incharge)

¶28

Cuddalore.

¶29

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

+1cc to Mr.D.Abdullah, Advocate SR.No.69254

¶32

Crl. O.P. Nos.13076 and 13079 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.8505 & 8506 of 2017 and 8509 & 8510 of 2017

¶33

AK-II(CO) CB(20/01/2022)

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Durrani, M/A.50 Yrs v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duraisamy, 45YRS, Vs Inspector of Police

Mrs.N.Prabha, Aged 26 Years, Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Q.Nuhman ,Aged 42 Yrs, Vs Caravel Logistics Pvt.Ltd

Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Baskaran Vs the State Rep. by

T.Ranga Vs State Rep. by