2026:CGHC:9784-DB Digitally signed by ANURADHA NAFR ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.02.26

10:40:37 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 579 of 2026 Tamada Shanmukha Rao S/o Late T Appa Rao Aged About 54 Years R/o C-Block, Plot No. 201, Gokuldham Apartment, Near Kotra Road, District-

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Dhabra, District- Shakti, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Santosh Tiwari S/o Siya Ram Tiwari R/o Choki Faguram, P.S. Dhabra, District- Shakti, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawa l , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

25.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following reliefs:-

“A. Quash FIR No. 0337/2025 dated 08.10.2025 registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti for the alleged offences under Sections106(1), 289 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023against the Petitioner and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom;

B. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been preferred invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashment of FIR No. 0337/2025 dated 08.10.2025 registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti, arising out of the unfortunate industrial accident dated 07.10.2025 at M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Village Uchhapinda, District Janjgir-Champa. It is contended that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely in his capacity as the “occupier” under the Factories Act, 1948 and that the allegations in the FIR are entirely derivative of his official position, without any independent or personal act of negligence being attributed to him.

4. Learned counsel submits that in respect of the very same incident, the respondent-State has already initiated statutory proceedings under Section 105 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 alleging contravention of safety obligations. The factual foundation in both proceedings—the statutory complaint under the Factories Act and the impugned FIR invoking Sections 106(1), 289 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—is identical, namely, alleged safety lapses resulting in the elevator malfunction leading to fatalities and injuries. It is argued that the FIR does not disclose any additional or independent ingredient distinct from what is already the subject matter of the special statutory prosecution. Thus, permitting both proceedings to continue would amount to impermissible parallel prosecution based on the same transaction, exposing the petitioner to duplicative criminal process.

5. It is further submitted that the Factories Act is a special and self-

contained legislation governing industrial safety and prescribing specific penal consequences under Section 92 for contravention leading to death or serious injury. In such circumstances, invocation of general penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for the same alleged omission defeats the legislative intent underlying the special statute. Placing reliance on settled principles of law, learned counsel contends that where a special statute occupies the field and provides a complete mechanism for prosecution, recourse to the general penal law is unwarranted in absence of distinct ingredients. Continuation of both proceedings would, therefore, result in abuse of process and is liable to be interdicted by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the Passenger-cum-Goods Elevator in question had been duly examin