2001 Supreme(SC) 1167

2001(6) Supreme 408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
A.P. Misra and Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.
S.M. Datta -Appellant
versus
Shah of Gujarat and Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 852-855 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1566-69       of 2000)
Decided on 24-8-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D.A. Dave, Sr. Advocate, R.N. Karanjawala, Siddharth Dave, Ms. Julie Buragohain and Mrs. Manik Karanjwawala, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R.P. Bhat, Sr. Advocate, Jatin Jhaveri, Ms. Anu Sawhney and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
If an offence is disclosed (in FIR) the Court will not normally interefere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. The present case falls in discloser of an offence under Factories Act, 1948 so High Court was right in refusing to quash it.

Headnote:Factories Act, 1948-Sections 63 r/w 92-Offence under-Factories Inspector finding in his inspection on 17.10.89 at 6 P.M. a workman in Group C was found to be working after prescribed working hours 8 A.M. to 4.30 P.M. doing over time work-FIR lodged-Application by occupier to quash it-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-What is proper course? Whether appeal be allowed? (No)-Case law discussed-(Cross Ref. Cr. P.C. 1973-Sections 173(8), 190 and 482).

       Held : (After reviewing case law) : We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude neither it is a document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context however one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The First Information Report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. (Para 9)

       Mr. Dave, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the petition though very strongly urged that the words "otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work for adults" displayed at the factory as appears in Section 63 there is thus complete compliance. The requirements in terms of Rule 87 or 88 and that of Form No. 14 also stand complied with. Mr. Dave further pointed out that the second requirement of Section 63 ought to be co-related with Form No. 28 under Section 62 read with Section 110 of the Gujarat Factories Rules. The statute, however, in particular Section 61 specifically requires entries to be made beforehand which stands virtually engrafted in Section 63. Compliance with Form No.28 is not in dispute but compliance with Form No.14 and entries to be made therein beforehand needs a further security of facts which at this stage of the proceeding cannot be gone into. User of the expression before hand appears in Section 61 which envisages a specific state of facts, which the complainant alleges as not being complied with - criminal complaints ought not to be scuttled at the initial stages and quashing of complaint at the initial stages is rather an exception than a rule. Beneficial legislations have been engrafted on the statute book for the benefit of the socially down-trodden and on the wake of such a situation, it would neither be fair nor be reasonable at this stage to nullify the efforts of an inspector under the Rules. The matter needs further enquiry and investigation as to the factum of entry being made before hand in the register maintained in terms of Section 61 of the Factories Act. It is too early in the day to say that there would not be even a possibility of non-compliance of Section 63 which in turn envisages non-compliance of Section 61 and Section 62 of the Factories Act. A long catena of cases some of which stand referred by us hereinbefore in this judgment signifies one principle rule that the complaints ought not to be quashed at the initial stages unless it is termed to be an abuse of the process of the court, the complaint in question in our view, cannot be so termed as such we do not find any justification for interference with the order as passed by the High Court. The Appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 20 & 21)