The court held that FIRs concerning factory-related incidents must comply with the Factories Act, overriding general criminal law provisions.

ORDER :

1. By invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the applicant seeks quashment of the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) bearing Crime No.184 of 2021 dated 26th May 2021 registered with Chandanzira Police Station, District-Jalna for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, and later on by way of amendment the applicant seeks to quash the proceedings i.e. after filing of the charge- sheet, the proceeding bearing S.C.C. No. 1632 of 2021 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Gangakhedkar along with learned Advocate Mr. Nirmal for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Phule for respondent No.1 – State.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was serving as a supervisor (melter) in Saptashringi (Rajuri) Steel Company, Jalna. The informant – Omsingh Pappusingh Chavan i.e. respondent No.2 was serving as a helper. It has been alleged that on 24th May 2021 the informant had duty from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. His colleagues Rakeshsingh and Amitsingh were with him. Informant went near furnace No.1 panel room at about 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. along with his colleagues and they were inspecting the furnace. At that time they found that there was a crack to the furnace and the liquid from the same was coming down on a coil. However, because of the pressure there was a big noise and the informant had tried to go away from the furnace but the steam had caused burn injuries to his neck, both the hands, back and right toe. His colleagues had left away from the spot and therefore, they had not sustained any injuries. The informant says that the said incident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the applicant and therefore, he lodged the report.

4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that perusal of the above said contents of the FIR would clearly show that the alleged incident had taken place within the factory premises. In fact the requirements of Section 7-A and 7-B of the Factories Act were complied with by the factory management. Certificate of stability, as is required to be obtained in view of the provisions of Rule 3-A in Form 1-A of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963, was also received by the factory. Various parts of the machinery were structurally sound. When the incident takes place in the premises of the factory then in respect of any contravention, the prosecution would be under Section 92 of the Factories Act or even if we accept that being a supervisor / melter the applicant was liable to inspect the machinery regularly; he also being a worker the act may attract the offence prescribed in Section 97 of the Factories Act . Further, in view of Section 105 of the Factories Act , which deals with the cognizance of the offences, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of the Chief Inspector, the FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable at all.

5. Learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on the decision by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in Vivek Agrawal and another vs. State of Assam , (2016) 4 Gauhati Law Reports 624, wherein it has been held that the FIR lodged before the Police alleging negligence against the owner who can be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act then the FIR filed was not maintainable in view of Section 105 of the Factories Act , so also the charge-sheet filed on the basis of the said FIR needs to be quashed. Further, the lear