When specialized legislation provides a complete regulatory framework for accidents within industrial premises, police investigation under general criminal law is excluded, as filing an FIR without allegations of a cognizable offence constitutes an abuse of the court's process.

ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including FIR being Bistupur P.S. Case No.159 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 287, 304(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Informant of the case, Kunwar Shabaz Zama is the brother of the deceased, who was an employee of Tata Steel Limited and as per the written report died in an accident while he was on his duty. When the informant received information, he came from his native place- Kota to Jamshedpur to take possession of his dead body. On the basis of the written report, Bistupur P.S. Case No.159 of 2020 was lodged under Sections 287, 304(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against one unknown on 24.09.2020.

3. The petitioner is a retired employee of Tata Steel Limited and at the relevant time of accident was Manager in Tata Steel Limited and received notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. Hence, this case.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the averment made in the written report does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence which is sine qua non for putting the criminal law into motion under Section 174 of the BNSS. As a matter of fact, on 21st September, 2020, the deceased was engaged as Shift-In-Charge of ‘C’ Shift and was in duty from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. at Galvanizing area of Cold Rolling Mill, Tata Steel, Jamshedpur. As a result of surface quality defect, there was a dent in the running strip, resulting in the accident. He was found entrapped between exit looper steering roll # 8 – 1 and its bottom frame by ‘A’ Shift-In-Charge.

5. It is argued that in the case of accidental death within factory premises, police has no power to lodge FIR and initiate investigation. As a matter of fact, enquiry was initiated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 and after reply of the Company- Tata Steel Limited, the matter was closed and no official complaint was filed. In the preliminary enquiry, the Company and the report submitted by the Factory Inspector on 07.11.2020 under Section 92 of the Factories Act were found at fault. Tata Steel Company Limited submitted reply dated 05.12.2020, thereafter, no official complaint was lodged which has been specifically stated in para 15 of the writ petition.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel that the police without any jurisdiction or legal authority, is harassing the petitioner by issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS/Section 41A of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has opposed the quashing application.

8. The matter for consideration before this Court is whether in the absence of any specific averment and allegation disclosing a cognizable offence, can a police initiate investigation by lodging FIR with regard to an accidental death in a factory premise?

9. The answer can be emphatic ‘no’ to this. Entire material on record suggests that it was an accidental death of an employee which was reported by the brother of the deceased to the Officer-in-Charge, Bistupur Police Station for getting the possession of his dead body. There is no allegation that it was an intentional act done by anyone. It is also apparent that notice was issued under Section 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the report was also submitted and the Company was found to have violated provisions of Factories Act and disclosing offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The Factory Inspector was within his right to file an official complaint before the competent jurisdiction for violating the provisions