ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 313 of 2015 on the file of the 4th Additional District Judge, Madurai. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 286, 337, 338, 304 (A) IPC and Section 9(B) (1)(a) of the Explosives Act, 1884. She is the sole accused. On 24.09.2013 at about 05.10 P.M, the second respondent who is the Village Administrative Officer, Kinnimangalam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk heard a loud explosion. He came to know that a major accident had occurred in the factory premises of Anandham Fire Works. Two persons had died and 20 others had suffered grievous injuries. The defacto complainant was informed that due to non adherence to the safety standards and mishandling of fireworks, the occurrence had taken place. He lodged information before the Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station. Crime No. 375 of 2013 was registered. The matter was investigated and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Usilampatti. Cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. It was taken on file in S.C. No. 313 of 2015 and made over to the 4th Additional District Judge, Madurai. To quash the same, this criminal original petition has been filed.

2. The case was taken up for admission on 16.06.2016 and interim stay was granted by this Court. The interim order reads as follows:

"The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 313 of 2015.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of double jeopardy and already the accused has been prosecuted by the Inspector of Labour and punished in STC Nos. 83 and 84 of 2014 and a copy of the Judgment dated 16.04.2014 is produced before this Court.

3. Taking note of double prosecution in similar set of circumstances, this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 3749 of 2007, has held that subsequent prosecution is not maintainable and the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be allowed. This Judgment has been followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and in support of the same, the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No. 3222 of 2015 has also been produced.

4. Mr. A.P. Balasubramani, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has taken notice for the respondents.

5. Stay of further proceedings in S.C. No. 313 of 2015 until further orders. Personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with until further orders."

3. When the matter was taken up for final disposal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions which led to the grant of interim stay. He also pointed out that the same ratio has been laid down in the decision reported in 2012 (2) MWN (Cr.) 335 (Manoharan vs. State of Tamil Nadu). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision in Ashwini Kumkar Singh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2007 LLR 866, wherein, in Paragraph No. 7, it has been held as follows:

"Para 7: The law is settled in the various decisions that the special law shall prevail over the general law but both shall not run concurrently for the same cause of action. I find that when the complaint case has been instituted vide C/2 No. 5211/05 under Special law (Factories Act, 1948), the continuation of the criminal prosecution against the petitioners for the offence prescribed in the general law of Indian Penal Code is unsustainable. In both the statutes viz., under Section 304 (A), Indian Penal Code (general law) and under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 the sentence prescribed to the convict is similar but with additional fine to the extent of Rupees One Lakh in the Special Act to the Occupier and in this manner the extent of find is more severe in special law and both cannot proceed at a time. The criminal prosecution of the petitioners, therefore, under Indian Penal Code is unsustainable.

10.