IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11/11/2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

CRL. O.P. NO.13924 OF 2017

AND

CRL.M.P.NOS.8923 & 8924 OF 2017

1.P.Dinesh

2.Gopalakrishnan

... Petitioners

Vs.

The State

Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Tambaram

Chennai-600 045

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in

C.C.No.76 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.S.Patrick

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

for Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash

C.C.No.76 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Tambaram.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this

Criminal Original Petition is as follows:-

Petitioners 1 and 2 are the Director and Supervisor,

respectively of Pradeep Stainless India Pvt Ltd. One of the

employees of the Company viz., R.Narmatha, on 30/6/2015, after

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

completion of her work, at about 7.00 p.m., tried to open the

door, as if it was a normal door, but it was a sliding door.

She fell into the hot water kept in the nearby stainless steel

drum and sustained burn injuries, below the abdomen, around the

waist and legs and succumbed to injuries, on 3/7/2017. A

criminal case was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Chengalpet, against the Company by the Factory Inspector, for

violating various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules,

punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The Inspector

of Police, Tambaram, filed charge sheet against the petitioners,

under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code, in C.C.No.76 of

2017.

3. Heard Mr.S.Patrick, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate

(Criminal Side) for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the accused are is no way connected with the

charges. The charge sheet issued under various Sections

punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act and under

Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code are on the same set of

facts. Hence both the cases cannot be proceeded simultaneously

for the same occurrence and it suffers from the vice of double

jeopardy. Dying declaration given by the deceased before the

Investigating Officer also clearly indicate that she fell

accidentally and nobody was responsible for the same.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

further submitted that once the Company was already charge

sheeted under Factories Act and the case was already disposed of

on 7^th July 2017 by imposing fine and penalty of Rs.70,000/-

under various Sections of the Factories Act, proceeding

against the petitioners under IPC is untenable. Hence prays for

quashing C.C.No.76 of 2017.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

for the respondent did not dispute the launching of the

prosecution under Factories Act against the petitioners and

also fairly submitted that there is dying declaration before the

Investigating Officer by the deceased to the effect that no one

was responsible for the injuries caused to her.

7. Perused the materials available on record.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The admitted facts are that these petitioners are

arrayed as accused in C.C.No.76 of 2017, which is pending on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. The

petitioners are the Director and Supervisor, respectively of

Pradeep Stainless India Pvt Ltd. On 30/6/2015, at about 7.00

p.m., R.Narmatha, while trying to open the door, fell into the

hot water kept in the nearby stainless steel drum and succumbed

to injuries, on 3/7/2017. As per th