MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Complaint No. COMA 4319 dated 05.04.2019 initiated by the respondent for the alleged violation of provisions contained under Section 7A(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 66D of the Punjab Factory Rules, 1952 and all consequential proceedings/orders arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, an industrial accident occurred at about 2:15 p.m. on 21.11.2018 in the factory of M/s Happy Forgings Ltd. (Unit-2), Finishing Unit, Ludhiana, wherein one worker namely Rajindra Ray lost his life. Thereafter, an inquiry was marked by the Head Office vide letter No. Maruhadsa/30/18/10433 dated 14.12.2018 to Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti, Assistant Director of Factories, Circle No.1, Ludhiana, who conducted inquiry/inspection on 03.12.2018 at 1:00 p.m., on 18.12.2018 at 11:00 a.m. and on 28.12.2018 at 2:00 p.m. During inquiry, alleged violations of Section 7A(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rule 66D of the Punjab Factory Rules, 1952 were found. Thereafter, on the instructions of the Additional Director of Factories for Director of Factories, Punjab vide letter No. DAF/MH/30/19/1356 dated 28.02.2019, complaint/challan was ordered to be filed against the petitioner under Section 7A(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 66D of the Punjab Factory Rules, 1952. Consequently, Complaint No. COMA 4319 came to be instituted on 05.04.2019 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 by the Assistant Director of Factories (Inspector of Factories), Circle No.1, Ludhiana.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned complaint is patently barred by limitation prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, inasmuch as the alleged accident had taken place on 21.11.2018 at about 2:15 p.m. and the information regarding the occurrence was admittedly conveyed to the office of Assistant Director of Factories, Circle No.1, Ludhiana as well as to the Director of Factories, Punjab on 21.11.2018 itself through telephonic communication, whereafter formal Accident Report in Form No.18 was duly received by the office of Assistant Director of Factories on 22.11.2018. It has further been argued that immediately upon receipt of information, the Assistant Director of Factories, Circle No.1, Ludhiana addressed communication vide dispatch No.710 dated 22.11.2018 to the higher authorities intimating about the occurrence and undertook to conduct investigation. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry was thereafter conducted by the Inspector/Assistant Director of Factories on 03.12.2018, 18.12.2018 and 28.12.2018, which clearly demonstrates that the Inspector had acquired knowledge regarding the alleged commission of offence at least on 21/22.11.2018 and, in any case, not later than 03.12.2018. It has been argued that despite such admitted knowledge, the complaint came to be filed only on 04.04.2019/05.04.2019, much beyond the statutory period of three months prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act. Learned counsel further contends that the limitation under Section 106 starts running from the date the alleged commission of offence comes to the knowledge of the Inspector and not from the date of completion of inquiry, preparation of report or receipt of approval from higher authorities. It is further argued that neither any application seeking condonation of delay was moved nor any explanation regarding delay in filing the complaint was furnished before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel has submitted that even if the date of first inquiry i.e. 03.12.2018 is taken as the starting point, the complaint still remained beyond limitation. On the strength of judgments passed in J.J. Irani v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2014 SC 3735), M/s Changer Vidyut Kranti Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2024, decided on 13.02.2024 and Rajeev Mittal v. State of Orissa, CRLMC No.2815 o