Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
NISAMUDHEEN K.S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7431 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE, SMT.A.A.GEETHA, SRI.K.P.S.JALALUDDEEN MOHMMED
For the Respondents: SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP, SMT.MINI GOPINATH, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable where disputed questions of fact need resolution by the Trial Court.
Headnote:The petitioner, the 1st accused in S.T.No.456 of 2021, challenges the complaint against him under the Mines Act, 1952, alleging failure to report a fatal accident and appoint a manager. The petitioner asserts compliance with the Act, while the 2nd respondent's counter-affidavit alleges non-compliance. The Court finds that disputed facts necessitate determination by the Trial Court rather than through a Criminal Miscellaneous Case. Thus, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed but allows the petitioner to raise contentions in the Trial Court, including seeking discharge under Sections 274 and 531(2)(a).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident reporting and manager appointment under the mines act (Para 1 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding complaint validity and evidential issues (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's responsibility to decide factual disputes through the trial court (Para 4 , 8) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 1st accused in S.T.No.456 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III (Temporary), Muvattupuzha ('Trial Court', in short), which has been taken on file on the basis of Annexure-I complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 69 , 70(1), 72A, 72C(1)(a) and 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 ('Act', in short).
2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash Annexure-I complaint and all further proceedings as against him on the assertion that, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offences.
3. The concise case of the 2nd respondent in Annexure-I complaint is that, on 09.12.2020, at around 11.18 hours, the 2nd respondent received an e-mail from P.T.Ambujakshan reporting that a fatal accident occurred at the Bright Quarry on 08.12.2020 at around 14.45 hours to a person named Rahul R. In the inspection and enquiry that was conducted, it was revealed that, while Rahul R. was performing maintenance work in the quarry, a fractured boulder fell on the excavator and he suffered fatal injuries. The petitioner failed to report the accident, appoint the Manager and also contravened the provisions of the Act. Thus, the accused persons have committed the above offences.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegation in the complaint are taken on their face value, it would not attract the offences. In fact, the petitioner had reported the accident to the 2nd respondent and had appointed a Manager as envisaged under the Act. It is without looking into any of these aspects that the 2nd respondent has filed the complaint. Hence, the complaint may be quashed.
6. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposes the above submission. She submits that, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, inter alia, denying the allegations in the Crl.M.C. She contended that the petitioner was functioning the quarry without obtaining a permit. It is 86 days after the accident that the petitioner gave notice of the accident, and 30 days after the accident appointed the Manager. The above omissions are sufficient to attract the above offences. The contentions raised in the Crl.M.C. are matters to be decided by the Trial Court. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
7. The prosecution's specific case is that the petitioner had failed to appoint a Manager and did not report about the accident to the 2nd respondent. On the contrary, the petitioner submits that he had appointed a Manager at the time of getting the permit, given notice of the accident, had complied with all the conditions as per the permit, and as per the provisions of the Act, which was the reason why he was given the permit to operate the quarry.
8. On a consideration of the facts, the materials on record and the rival submissions made across the Bar, I find the contentions raised before this Court are disputed questions, which can only be decided by the Trial Court, and not under a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. The allegations in the complaint, if taken on their face value do attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. Thus, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, I am of the view that it would be upto the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dism
