SUBRATA MONINDRANATH MAITY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the 'occupier' of M/s.Bhatia Coke Energy Limited. Against the petitioner, the complaints, otherwise than the police report, filed by the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health-II, taken cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur for the offence under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act in C.C.Nos.510 to 516 of 2022.

(3.) The petitioner herein was appointed by NCLT as the 'resolution professional' and nominated to be the 'Occupier' of the factory run by M/s.Bhatia Coke Energy Limited. He is before this Court claiming that the complaints filed by the respondent suffers material infirmity. The petitioner is not the Director of the company, but Resolution Professional appointed by the NCLT under the IBC, 2016. Therefore, he could not be deemed to be the 'occupier' of the factory as defined under Sec. 2(n) of the Factories Act. The Resolution Professional appointed under IBC, 2016 will not fall within the ambit of duties and responsibilities caused on the "occupier" under the Factories Act. Under Sec. 233 of the IBC, 2016, action done or taken in good faith by the Resolution Professional is protected. M/s.Bhatia Coke Energy Limited which was inspected by the respondent on 22/1/2021 is the 'Corporate Debtor' managed by the Resolution Professional/Petitioner herein as per the orders passed by the NCLT. He functions in the capacity of the officer of the Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have the burden with the liability of being incarcerated of paying fine out of his pocket.