ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4843 of 2020 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

2. The respondent lodged a complaint alleging that on 29.02.2020, the deceased was working as an operator in the second shift in the anodizing tank area which has seven tanks. At about 8.57 p.m., he went near to the degreasing tank contained soap oil and demineralized water at a temperature of about 80 degree Celsius. He fell into the degreasing tank, which was neither closed nor fenced and suffered 90% burn injuries, and he was admitted in the hospital but succumbed to the injuries on 01.03.2020. After the said incident, on 07.12.2020, two private complaint were lodged by the respondent, one of which, was lodged as against the Manager and another was lodged as against the petitioner, who is the occupier of the factory. Both the complaints were taken cognizance on 07.12.2020.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:

(i) There is no violation under Section 33 of the Factories Act. The seven elevated tanks in phosphating tank area in the machine shop had not been installed in the year 1991. The factory had not subjected to regular inspection by the officials of the Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health. In fact, they had lastly visited on 10.01.2020. There has never been any contravention identified by them. As such, the provision under Section 33 of the Factories Act is not applicable and it is only applicable for fixed vessel, sump, tank, pit or opening in the ground or in the floor. Whereas in the case on hand, the degrading tank is located on an elevated platform of 12 cm above the ground with four legs. Further, the provision under Section 7 A (1)(2) of the Factories Act is not made out as against the petitioner. Since all the allegations are fake and bald.

(ii) The entire length and breadth of the complaint does not spell out how the provision under Section 7 A of the Factories Act would attract, since there is no violation. There is no allegation that the occupier of the factory had not ensured the health, safety and welfare of all workers, while they were at work in the factory.

(iii) The complaint itself barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 106 of the Factories Act, it has been violated. As such, the complaint itself is a clear abuse of process of law. As per provisions under Section 106 of the Factories Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months.

(iv) Therefore, there is a clear violation under Section 105 of the Factories Act. It demonstrates that only on fulfillment of the mandate under Section 105 of the Act i.e. the complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector can any complaint be filed. Whereas in the case in hand, the complainant is the respondent, who is the Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, who is not empowered to lodge the present impugned complaint without the written sanction of the Inspector.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the Manager of the very same factory has also been prosecuted in C.C.No.4842 of 2020 and he filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.21130 of 2020. The said accused had also raised the very same grounds, however, this Court dismissed the quash petition by the order, dated 07.04.2022. This Court further observed that, it is not a fit case to quash the private complaint at that stage and stated that the defence pleaded by the petitioner therein had to be proven before the trial court and the Court has not considered the same, without proper trial. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner herein can be considered only before the trial court during the trial. Hence he prays for dismissal of the quash petition.

5. It is seen that the respondent has filed a private complaint as against the petitioner fo