Allowed

Rabindra Rout v. State

Orissa HC9 Mar 2021CRLMC/2072/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed a maintenance of criminal proceeding application under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that since a case under Section 92 of the Factories Act was pending for the same fatal accident, a parallel prosecution under the IPC could not be maintained, relying on Sri Jaiprakash Pandey and Ashwini Kumar Singh.

What did the court decide?

CRLMC allowed, order framing charge in G.R. Case No.1064 of 2007 quashed, and petitioner Rabindra Rout discharged.

Rabindra Rout Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

CRLMC NO.2072 OF 2010

¶3

Rabindra Rout & others.

…….. Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Odisha.

…….. Opp.party

O R D E R

09.03.2021 This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Chandbali in G.R. Case No.1064 of 2007 framing charge under Sections 287/304-A/34 of I.P.C. against the accused-petitioners.

¶10

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order vis-à-vis the relevant papers on record.

¶11

3. At the outset, it be mentioned here that as per the true copies of the death certificates produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner

¶12

– Niranjan Jena died on 17.01.2016 and the petitioner – Banwarilal Agarwal died on 10.07.2014.

¶13

¶14

There being no dispute on record regarding death of those two accused-petitioners, the proceeding against them in the Court below stands abated.

¶15

4. Notwithstanding the above, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that not only the allegations made by the prosecution vide the charge-sheet submitted by Chandbali Police make out no case under the I.P.C. against the petitioners, launching of a parallel prosecution at the instance of police vis-à-vis the proceeding already initiated under Section 92 of the Factories Act vide 2(C) C.C. Case No.62 of 2007 before the same learned Magistrate, cannot be maintained. Admittedly, while for the selfsame incident, on the report of the father of the deceased – Renti Sirika, police registered a case and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet leading to the impugned order which is under challenge, on a complaint being lodged by the Asst. Director of Factories and Broiler, Cuttack, Zone-III, 2(C) C.C. No.62 of 2007 was registered, and as per the order dated 05.11.2007 the learned

¶16

¶17

J.M.F.C., Chandbali has taken cognizance of offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act against one Khetrabasi Nayak, shown to be the Manager of the Factory, namely, M/s. Shree Hanuman Rice Mill where the alleged incident took place.

¶18

5. It is, however, the contention of the learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State that since for different offences both the G.R. Case and the complaint case have been registered, the impugned order passed in the G.R. Case warrants no interference, inasmuch as the accidental death of the daughter of the Informant inside the Factory premises is an admitted fact.

¶19

6. As it reveals from the papers on record, Kumari Renti Sirika, daughter of the Informant was working as a helper on daily wage basis in the aforesaid Factory premises, and that on 03.08.2007 at 8.40 p.m. she died when her wearing cloth came in contact with the shafting roller and she got pressed in polisher. According to the prosecution, the death was caused due to absence of safety

¶20

¶21

measures or wire fence near the shafting rollers and polisher to prevent danger inside the factory premises, and that the owner and Manager of the Factory and the machine operator, namely, Rabindra Rout were responsible and liable for the said incident. To reiterate, the case against the owner and machine operator as charge-sheeted by police stands abated and it is now to be seen as to whether the impugned order as against the petitioner no.1 – Rabindra Rout shown to be the Manager of the Mill can sustain.

¶22

7. 2(C) C.C. No.62 of 2007 has been registered against one Khetrabasi Nayak shown to be the Manager of Hanuman Rice Mill whereas police has shown the present petitioner no.1 – Rabindra Rout as the Manager and, accordingly, charge-sheeted him. Hence, there is a factual controversy as to who was the Manager of the Factory at the relevant time. Be that as it may, it has already been held by this Court in the case of Sri Jaiprakash Pandey and

¶23

others vrs. State of Orissa, reported in (2008) 41

¶24

¶25

OCR 550 that for selfsame incident, there cannot be two prosecutions, one under Section 92 of the Factories Act and the other under Section 304-A and other Sections of IPC. Referring to a judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Singh and another vrs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2007 LLR 866, the single Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Jaiprakash Pandey (supra) held as follows:-

¶26

“xxxxxxxx Whenever, there is parallel provision in a general statute and special statute, the provision of the special statute will override the general statute. Keeping this in mind, the Jharkhand High Court in Ashwini Kumar Singh (supra) ruled that a police case under Sections 287, 288, 304-A and 338, I.P.C. is not maintainable, when for the selfsame incident a case under Section 92 of the Factories Act is pending. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in that case that for the self same incident there cannot be two prosecution. Since the entire allegation is covered in Criminal Case No.1392 of 2008, there is no scope for continuance of proceeding of G.R. Case No.274 of 2008 against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceeding of G.R. Case No.274 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda is quashed. The other case under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the petitioners will never continue.”

¶27

8. The present case being similarly situated, the impugned order of framing charge against the

¶28

¶29

petitioner no.1- Rabindra Rout cannot be sustained.

¶30

9. Accordingly, this CRLMC is allowed discharging the petitioner no.1- Rabindra Rout in G.R. Case No.1064 of 2007 with quashment of the proceeding of the said case.

¶31

……………………… S.Pujahari, J.

¶32

MRS

¶33

Rabindra Rout v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Rout v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijaya Ku.Dey Vs State

Sachhab Kanta Vatra Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs NHAI

Pravakar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Dr.Kulamani Barik Vs Sadananda Padhihary

Suresh Tarai Vs State of Odisha