VIJAYPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. is filed for quashment of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1810/2012 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar, District Dhar arising out of Crime No.177/2012, Police Station- Pithampur, District Dhar under Sections 287 and 338 IPC.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the present applicants are officers working in M/s Rajshri Plastiwood Pvt. Ltd having its factory situated at Industrial Area, Pithampur, District Dhar. The incident took place on 28.01.2012, employee Deepsingh was working on a sheering machine and was cutting PVC sheets. His left hand came between the cutting blades and resulted in chopping of four fingers and thumb. The crime was registered by Police Station- Pithampur, District Dhar as aforesaid and charge- sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhar. Similarly, the case was also registered by Labour Commissioner under Factories Act. A complaint was lodged under Section 21 read with Rule 59 of Factory Rules, 1962. The present applicants were fined Rs.15,000.00 each in a summery trial in S.T. No.865/2015, however, the case filed by the Police Station Pithampur in Crime No.177/2012 is still pending. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on order passed by this Court in case of Neeraj Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2016 LLR 703. The facts of this case was similar to the facts of the present case. In that case, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 287, 304-A of Penal Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. A complaint was also filed under Sec. 92 Factories Act by Factory Inspector. The Chief Judicial Magistrate commenced the trial in both the case separately. The applicant was fined Rs.1,05,000.00. A plea was based that after suffering conviction in a complaint case filed under Sec. 92 of Factories Act, the proceedings in criminal case filed by the police becomes infructuous and hit by section 300 Cr.P.C.

(3.) This Court placed reliance on judgment of Madras High Court in case of R. Kannan vs. State in Cri.O.P. No.3749/2007 and M.P. No.1/2007 decided on 26.09.2008. The Madras High Court opined that proceedings in criminal case is not maintainable, as both the cases were based on same set of facts. This Court also considered the orders passed by the Jharkhan High Court in case of Ashwini Kumar Singh and another vs. State of Jharkhand; 2007(2) JCR 334 and case of Ejaj Ahmad vs. State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No.911/2007 judgment dated 03.09.2009.