In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(Cr.) No.412 of 2009
Rabindra Agarwal............................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.RRASAD
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.A.S.Pati
For the State : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, J.C to G.P.III
7. 24.2.10
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the State.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
earlier in the writ application the informant was impleaded as
respondent no.2 inadvertently as the case arising of a police case is
well represented through the State of Jharkhand on whose behalf
even a counter affidavit has been filed and, therefore, the
petitioner thought it proper to delete the name of the informant
(respondent no.2) as the informant is being well represented by
the State of Jharkhand and the disposal of the case would be
delayed, on account of non-service of notice upon respondent no.2
and, therefore, under this situation, prayer has been made to
delete the name of respondent no.2.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the name of
respondent no.2 is allowed to be deleted from the memo of
application.
Accordingly, the prayer is allowed.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the State on the merit of the case.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings including the first information report of Kandra
2
P.S. case no.6 of 2009 (G.R.No.654 of 2009) registered under
Sections 285, 287, 337, 338,304A of the Indian Penal Code.
The facts giving rise this application are that one Anuj
Kumar Yadav gave his Fardbeyan on 17.8.2009 stating therein that
while he was working along with others, namely, Kumud Rai,
Lakhan Kumar and Pintu Nadaf as labourers at Induction Furnace
Site, a unit of M/s.Adhunik Alloys & Power Limited, power supply
went off suddenly, as a result of which molten slag spilled out of
bucket as a result of which they sustained burn injuries. They were
immediately removed to hospital but unfortunately Kumud Rai
succumbed to his injuries. Thus, it has been alleged that aforesaid
occurrence took place as the Company never cared to take safety
measures, though they were working at dangerous places.
On the said Fardbeyan, Kandra P.S. case no.6 of 2009 was
registered under Sections 285, 287, 337, 338,304A of the Indian
Penal Code. The said prosecution has been challenged in this writ
application.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the entire allegation made in the first information report falls within
the ambit of the provision as contained in Section 92 of the
Factories Act and, therefore, if any prosecution on account of
negligence on the part of the Management of the said factory lies
that lies under the Factories Act which is a special legislation and
as such, provision of the said Act would prevail over the provision
of the general law.
It was pointed out that when similar question arose before
this Court for consideration in a case of Binod Kumar Das and
another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [2008(1) JCR
601 (Jhr)], this Court taking into consideration the provision as
contained in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did hold
3
that prosecution under the general law on the allegation which falls
within the province of the special legislation is not permissible.
Similar is the case here as the allegation, upon which first
information report was lodged certainly falls within the ambit of
Section 92 of the Factories Act and hence, any prosecution under
the general law that is to say under the Indian Penal Code would
be quite bad.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State
stating therein that due to negligence on the part of the
Management for not adopting safety measure, the occurrence took
place and as such, the petitioner is being rightly prosecuted.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
there does not appear to be any doubt that the allegations upon
which first information report was lodged, come well within the
ambit of the provision as enshrined under Section 92 of the
Factories Act and as such, any prosecution under the general law in
view of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
permissible which proposition of law has already been laid down in
a case of Binod Kumar Das and another vs. State of
Jharkhand and another (supra).
Accordingly, the first information report of Kandra P.S. case
no.6 of 2009 (G.R.No.654 of 2009) registered under Sections 285,
287, 337, 338,304A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.
In the result, this application is allowed.
( R.R.Prasad, J.)
ND/