IMPORTANT POINT
Special legislation prevails over general law when there are specific provisions for a particular cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2012 in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No.31 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.469 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Seraikella.

3. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of the written report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Chowka Police Station wherein it has been alleged that the deceased labour Nirmal Singh Sardar while working in the sponge iron of Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Ltd., sustained internal head injuries due to which he died whereupon an U.D. Case was instituted in Chowka Police Station. In course of investigation, it transpired that due to lack of proper safety measures, the accident had taken place resulting to death of the deceased labourers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased Nirmal Sardar was not an employee of Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Ltd. and he was actually a contractor's labourer. He submits that the factum of the death of the deceased was reported to the Factory Inspector vide letter dated 09.04.2012. He submits that the Factory Inspector has not initiated any proceeding against the petitioner or the factory under the Factories Act, alleging any breach of the provisions of the Factories Act. He submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 287, 288 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that even if the entire allegation made in the FIR taken to be true, it falls within the ambit of the provisions as contained in Section 92 of the Factories Act, 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 general law. He relied upon the judgment passed in Binod Kumar Das and another v. State of Jharkhand and another; [2008(1) JCR 601 (Jhr)] and submits that that FIR of a case under Section 304, which is covered by Section 92 of the Factories Act is liable to be quashed because Factories Act being special legislation shall prevail over the general law. He refers Section 4 Cr.P.C. and submits that where there is special legislation, the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code will not be applicable. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the death has occurred in the factory and that is why the case has been registered and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the FIR and intimation to the Factory Inspector, contained in Annexure-2 of the petition and finds that admittedly the accident has occurred in the premises of the factory and death has occurred in the premises of the factory. The case was required to be filed under Factories Act, 1948. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi); [(2017) 2 SCC 18]. Paragraphs 31, 32 and 37 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

“31. Having noted the provisions, it has to be recapitulated that Section 67 clearly stipulates punishment for publishing, transmitting obscene materials in electronic form. The said provision read with Sections 67-A and 67-B is a complete code relating to the offences that are covered under the IT Act. Section 79, as has been interpreted, is an exemption provision conferring protection to the individuals. However, the said protection has been expanded in the dictum