The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for quashment of the order dated 2.2.06 passed by the C.J.M., Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 287/288/338 of the I.P.C. arising out of Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No.187/05 corresponding to G.R. No. 2112/05 presently pending in the Court of Shri D.C. Awasthi, Judicial. Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. It is further prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding j as against the petitioners.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28.9.05 while one Mukesh Singh (since deceased) was working in Golbana Engineering Department, under the supervision of contractor of Tube• Company, namely, Suresh Singh, Supervisor Nagina Sharma and the Engineers A.K. Singh and Ranjit Singh (Petitioners) the workman Mukesh Singh was asked to handover a hammer to the supervisor, and pursuant to that, while he was moving towards the supervisor, he slipped in the open metal chamber and as a result of which he sustained serious burn injuries and was immediately admitted to Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur where he succumbed while undergoing treatment and it is alleged that only on account of negligence on the part of the aforesaid persons including the petitioners' the occurrence took place. The victim Mukesh Singh delivered his Fardbeyan on the same day at about 18.15 hours before his death.

3. Learned Counsel submitted that the information regarding the accident in which Mukesh Singh sustained severe burn injuries was immediately given to Inspector of Factories on 26.9.05 and subsequently the Inspector of Factories filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act in the Court of the C.J.M., Jamshedpur and as such cognizance of the offence was taken in C/2 Case No. 5211/05 (Annexure-11).

4. Advancing his argument learned Counsel submitted that for the same set of facts and occurrence there cannot be two criminal cases viz. police case on the instance of Mukesh Singh (informant deceased) as well as the complaint case on the instance of the Inspector of Factories under Section 92 of the Factories Act. In that manner the petitioners have been harassed twice for single accident which is restricted under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Finally the learned Counsel submitted that there cannot be two separate investigation in respect of the same incident. He further submitted that regarding any occurrence being taken place inside the factory, the provisions as laid down in the Factories Act are applicable as warranted in the present accident. The facts stated in both, the complaint as well as in the first information report, relates to the same occurrence and the accident being fully covered by the penal provisions of the Factories Act in which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 92 of the Factory Act, the general law of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable when the case is covered under the special Act. The special Act shall prevail over the general law and the enquiry by the Factory Inspector bars any enquiry by the police under the provisions of Section 105 of the Factories Act as far as any offence/accident takes place in the factory premises. For such incident the Factory Inspector is the competent person to file a complaint. Finally learned Counsel submitted that when already case has been filed under the Factories Act and the same is pending, the continuation of the present proceeding in the Penal Sections of the I.P.C. would cause miscarriage of justice and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners including the order impugned dated 2.2.06 by the C.J.M., Jamshedpur taking the cognizance of the offence in Golmuri (Burma Mines) P.S. Case No.187/05 corresponding to G.R. No. 2112/05 be quashed.

6. Learned A.P.P conceded that the present case is governed by the penal provisions of the Factories Act.

7. Havi