Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
ANIL P.P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 9544 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE, SMT.A.A.GEETHA
For the Respondents: SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP, O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash a petition when disputes of facts are present, necessitating trial court adjudication.
Headnote:This case involves the interpretation of the Mines Act, 1952, concerning alleged safety violations resulting in a fatal accident at a quarry site. The Court dismissed the petition for quashing the complaint, ruling that issues raised were for the Trial Court to resolve, affirming the complaint alleged the petitioner did attract relevant offences under the Act. The final ruling directed the Trial Court to adjudicate and resolve the matter expediently.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case arises from allegations of serious safety violations under the mines act, 1952. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. the petitioner argues that the complaint lacks merit, asserting compliance with safety regulations. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the court states that disputed facts should be resolved at the trial level rather than through quashing. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 4. the dismissal of the petition reserves the right for the petitioner to present arguments in the trial. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 2nd 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 1st accused 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 DSGI 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 is only an agent in the quarry, and the 1st accused 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 DSGI for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposes the above submission. She denies the allegations in the Crl.M.C. She contended that the 1st accused 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 1st accused had failed to appoint a Manager and did not report about the accident to the 2nd respondent. On the contrary, the petitioner submits that the 1st accused 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 1st accused 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
