A complaint under the Factories Act must consider the respondent's reply to the show cause notice; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid and subject to quashing.

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“i. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1390/2024 filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the FACTORIES ACT , 1948 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto which are produced at Document No.1 on the file of learned 31^st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that on 21.12.2023, respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner, who submitted his reply on 29.12.2023, to which respondent once again issued a letter dated 29.12.2023. It is submitted that without referring to the aforesaid communication between the parties, in particular, the reply of the petitioner wherein the petitioner specifically denied the allegations against him in the show cause notice, respondent has proceeded to file impugned private complaint, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and registered as impugned C.C.No.1390/2024, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:

i. Mahendra Karle and Anr., Vs. The Assistant Director of Factories – W.P.Nos.52870-52871/2015 and connected matter dated 15.09.2018

ii. George Alexander Muthoot Vs. The State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.101559/2014 dated 21.01.2019

iii. L. Ganesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 2020(2) CTC 666

iv. Dayle De’souza Vs. Government of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and Ors.- AIR 2021 SC 5626

v. Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr., Vs. Massod Ahmed Khan and Ors – (2010) 9 SCC 496

vi. ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – (2010) 13 SCC 427

5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In Mahendra Karle’s case supra, this Court held as under:

The petitioners have filed these petitions for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.25204/2014 (in Writ Petition Nos.52870- 52871/2015) and C.C.No.25201/2014 (in Writ Petition Nos.52868-52869/2015), pending on the file of VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (henceforth for brevity referred to as `Court below’).

2. A perusal of the memorandum of writ petitions placed before this Court go to show that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court below seeking prosecution of the present petitioners who were arrayed as accused in the said private complaint under the FACTORIES ACT , 1948, and Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969.

3. The summary of the said complaint is that when the complainant visited and inspected the factory i.e., M/s.Karle International Private Limited, Tumakuru Road, Bengaluru, of which the 1^st petitioner is the occupier and the 2^nd petitioner is said to be the Factory Manager, on 14.6.2014 he noticed certain discrepancies and the violation of provisions of the FACTORIES ACT . The complainant has alleged that it was noticed that the factory had not employed Safety Officer though it had engaged more t