SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18942

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Geetha K.B., J
Gajraj Singh Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 109773 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandesh Chouta, Lomesh Kiran N.
For the Respondents: Ashok Kattimani

Criminal proceedings against a Director under Section 53 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Act, 1996, are not maintainable if the Company responsible for the alleged offence is not impleaded as a co-accused.

Headnote:(A) Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 - Section 53 - Company as an accused - Mandatory requirement for prosecution - Vicarious liability of Directors - Criminal proceedings against Director without impleading the Company.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Impermissibility of initiating criminal action against a Director under the BOCW Act where the Company has not been arrayed as an accused person - Analogy with Negotiable Instruments Act Section 141 - Prosecution of Director is not maintainable unless the principal offender (Company) is also joined.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Director of a steel company, was named as an accused in a private complaint filed following a fatal accident at the company's construction plant. The Company itself was not arrayed as an accused, and the petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him solely in his capacity as a Director.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that, following the settled principle in corporate criminal liability, prosecution against a Director for offences committed by a Company is not maintainable if the Company is not impleaded as an accused.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings can be initiated against a Director under the BOCW Act without arraying the Company as an accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Referring to precedent under similar statutory frameworks, the Court concluded that Section 53 of the BOCW Act requires the Company to be a party to the proceedings for the vicarious liability of a Director to be triggered.

Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition for quashing criminal proceedings against a company director. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding the necessity of impleading the company in criminal prosecutions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court holds that under section 53 of the bocw act, a director cannot be prosecuted without impleading the company. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO GRANT A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED APRIL 8, 2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/COMPLAINANT IN PCR NO.7 OF 2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED APRIL 11, 2025 JUNE 21, 2025 AND AUGUST 30, 2025 ISSUED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI IN PCR NO.7/2025 (ANNEXURE-B) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3; CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.7 OF 2025 ON THE FILE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BALLARI (ANNEXURE-B) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL ORDER

Heard arguments of learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and reply arguments of Senior counsel, Sri Sandesh Chouta for Sri Lomesh Kiran N. for the petitioner.

2. This is the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS 2023’) praying for quashing the impugned complaint dated 08.04.2025 filed by respondent No.1-complainant in PCR No.7/2025 (Annexure-A) against the present petitioner/accused No.3; quash the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, 21.06.2025 and 30.08.2025 issued by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari in PCR No.7/2025 (Annexure-B) against the petitioner/accused No.3 and consequently quash the impugned proceedings in PCR No.7/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari as against petitioner/accused No.3 and for such other reliefs.

3. The case of petitioner is that petitioner is working as Director at M/s. JSW Steel Limited having its registered office at JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai City, Mumbai, Maharashtra since May 19, 2023. The Company has set up an ore beneficiation plant for processing of raw mined ore in order to remove impurities and increase the concentration of valuable minerals. The plant in question-‘OBP-1 Project Plant’ is situated at Toranagallu Village, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District (for short, ‘Project’). M/s. Real Technical Solutions Limited (RTSL) was engaged as a contractor for supply of skilled manpower for the Project, vide purchase order dated 11.05.2024. The workers were employed and worked under the direction, instructions, supervision and control of RTSL. It appears that the worker fell and met an unfortunate demise since he had climbed the elevation without wearing necessary PPE and safety harness, which was completely unnecessary for his assigned role as a fire watcher at the ground level. The deceased worker was immediately shifted to M/s. Jindal Sanjeevani Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead. Respondent No.1 has filed impugned complaint on 08.04.2025 alleging the commission of offence in contravention of Rule 199(a)(iii) and Rule 199(b) of the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘BOCW Rules’) punishable under Section 47 of Building and other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short, ‘BOCW Act’).

4. The Magistrate has issued summons to petitioner on 11

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top