BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16587 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.13530 and 13532 of 2025

1. Anusiya Devi

2. Pandi ... Petitioners/Accused 1 and 3 Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sindhupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No.202 of 2022. ...1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.Rajamani ...2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the Charge Sheet in P.R.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.Henri Tiphagne For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in P.R.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, filed for the offences punishable under Sections 286, 337, 338, 304(ii), 308, 427 of IPC and Section 9(B)(1)(a) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884.

2. The gist of the allegation in the impugned final report is that the first accused was running a factory by the name VBM Fireworks; that on 10.11.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., an explosion occurred in the said factory, resulting in the death of five workers and causing grievous injuries to about sixteen workers; that although the petitioners had a valid licence to store explosives and had also obtained insurance coverage, they failed to take due care and caution in ensuring that the fire extinguishers were in working condition and that the workers had a safe environment; and that the workers were made to work in an open place, thereby causing the death and injuries to them.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the disputed allegations even if accepted to be true, would at best, suggest negligence and would not constitute either gross negligence to attract Section 304(A) or attract the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC or any of the other offences alleged. He further submitted that there is no allegation that the fireworks were manufactured in violation of the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and therefore, no offence under the said Act is made out; that for the alleged violations in the factory, the persons in-charge of the factory, were already prosecuted under the Factories Act and on their admission of guilt, they were sentenced to pay fine; that in such circumstances, the first petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the accident. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sumathi v. State, reported in 2023 (2) MWN (Cr.) 279

4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioners have paid compensation to all the injured victims as well as to the family members of the deceased; that the Government has also paid compensation; that the family members of the deceased have received compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Insurance Scheme; and that, since the offences alleged are not made out and considering the aforesaid fact, the impugned final report may be quashed.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that the petitioners, being the owner, supervisor, and persons in charge of VBM Fireworks, had stored explosives in a manner endangering human life; that due to their failure to take proper care and caution, five lives were lost and sixteen others sustained grievous injuries; that the question as to whether their act amounts to negligence or gross negligence or an offence under Section 304(ii) IPC can be adjudicated only in the trial; and that mere payment of compensation would not absolve the petitioners from their criminal liability.

6. It is seen from the averments in the impugned final report that the first petitioner is the owner of the said VBM fireworks; that the petitioner has a va