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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
A.R.Jeyarajan – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director of Indus – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on: 19.11.2025

Pronounced on: 20.01.2026

PRESENT

The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

CRL OP(MD)No.22756 of 2022

and

CRL MP(MD)No.16109 of 2022

A.R.Jeyarajan ... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Deputy Director of Industrial

Safety and Health – I (I/C),

Sivakasi. ... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh

For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

PETITION FOR QUASH Under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- To call for the records relating to C.C.No.501 0f 2022, on the file

of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur, and to quash the same.

ORDER: The Court made the following order :-

This petition is filed to quash C.C.No.501 0f 2022, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur.

2. The petitioner is running a firm in the name of M/s.Sargunam Fireworks Industries for manufacture of fireworks and necessary license was obtained from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization Department in Form LE-1 and possession and sale of fireworks in Form LE-3. The firm is also registered under Factory Act 1948.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 16.05.2022 during the factory tea interval time near about 9.45am, one of the workers (Room Supervisor) Kandasamy took 2 single aerial shot cracker pieces and went away and he started to ignite them at a place which is more than 200 meters away from the factory premises. The foreman tried to stop him. But in the meantime, one of the crackers burst by which the said Kandasamy sustained injuries at his forehead and face. Immediately, he was taken and admitted as in- patient in a Private Hospital viz Dr.Chandragraham, Medical Foundation Private Limited, which is a Multi-Speciality hospital wherein he was given treatment from

16.05.2022 to 24.05.2022. The company took care of him and paid all his medical expenses, i.e., to the tune of Rs.44,085/-. Thereafter, for his eye treatment he was diagnosed at Sivakasi Medical Research and Diagnostic Private Limited and for further treatment he was taken to Naveen Eye Hospital, Sivakasi. All the medical treatment expenses and medicine bills were paid by the company. As he was enrolled in ESI scheme, he applied and got Rs.18,540/- from the ESI Corporation through his Tamilnad Mercantile Bank account. Apart from that, in order to support his family and on humanitarian basis, the company paid Rs.20,000/- as cash to Kandasamy's wife Mrs.Krishnammal. He is given continuous treatment in "Arvind Eye Hospital, Madurai" and he is having speedy recovery and is feeling better. In addition to that, the company is paying Rs.2000/- every week without extracting any work from him.

4. On the same day at the evening, the Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health Office Officials, attached to Sivakasi Office inspected the accident spot and also the factory. The petitioner clearly narrated about the incidents which had happened. The place of accident is more than 200 meters away from the factory premises. The inspecting officials enquired about Kandasamy's present health condition. The medical report was submitted to the officials at their office on the same day itself.

5.The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 08.06.2022 in which they levelled charges against the petitioner under Section 7A(1)(2) of Factory Act 1948 and Rule 41, 61F and 61(O)(1)(2)(iii) regarding the said accident. The respondent also pointed out some violations which they stated to have found during their inspection and also framed charges under Section 6(1) read with Rule 3(1)(2) and Section 87 read with 95 schedule XXIV item 10(O) and sought explanation. The petitioner submitted explanations on 17.06.2022 which is also acknowledged by the respondent on the same day. Without mentioning the same, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.501/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur. Hence the criminal case is liable to be qua

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