SUNIL KURIAN MATHEW Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants has preferred this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the FIR bearing crime No.145/2013 registered at Police Station Kurawar (Kotra), District Rajgarh and order dated 18.07.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh District Rajgarh whereby the cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sec. 288 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the applicants in criminal case No.490/2013.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that applicant No.1 is the Factory Manager and applicant No.2 is the Maintenance Team Leader of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'Company'), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing, packaging, sale and distribution of sweetened carbonated water, carbonated water, packaged drinking water, fruit based drinks etc. under various brands. The applicants are based at the plaint/factory of the company amongst others situated at Plot No.169-175 AKVN, Industrial Area, Pillukhedi, Tehsil-Narsinghgarh, Rajgarh. On 07.06.2013 at about 04:00 am, section of the bioler chimney of plant collapsed due to heavy wind accompanied with thunder storm and lightening (natural calamity). The said chimney unfortunately fell on the roof of the boiler room which resulted in breaking of a portion of the wall. The portion of the wall fell on two associates namely Komal Prasad Chandel and Rajkumar Soni, who were sitting on chairs inside the Boiler room near the shutter as a result they suffered injury. They were taken to the hospital immediately, however, they succumbed to their injuries. It is alleged that the the chimney was not well maintained by the company management and because of negligence on the part of the company including the applicants the occurrence took place. On the basis which, FIR was registered under Sec. 304-A of I.P.C. against the applicants at Police Station Kurawar (Kotra). During the investigation, police recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sec. 288 and 304 of I.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgarh, who took the cognizance against the applicants for the said offence and registered the matter as criminal case No.490/2013. For the same incident, show cause notice was issued by the Factory Inspector, Dewas to the one Patrick George Yadauga (occupier) and applicant No.1 being the factory Manager under the Factories, Act, 1948. The reply to the show cause was also filed by the applicant No.1, however, not being satisfied by the reply, Factory Inspector filed a complaint bearing No.626/2013 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgar, District Rajgarh against Patric George Yadauga (Occupier) and applicant No.1 alleging violation of section 7 A of the Factories Act, 1948 read with 73 C of M.P. Factories Rules, 1962 punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. The said complaint was filed on 05.09.2013 and on the same day i.e. 05.09.2013 the court has taken cognizance and issued summons to the applicant No.1. After completion of the trial, applicant No.1 was acquitted from the charges framed under the Factories Act.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the applicants has submitted that for the same set of facts and occurrence there cannot be two criminal case viz. Police case on the instance of Braj Gopal Soni (brother of deceased Rajkumar Soni) as well as the complaint case on the instance of Inspector of factories under section 92 of the Factories Act. In that manner the applicants have been harassed twice for single accident which is restricted under section 300 of the Crimial P.C. 1973 It is further submitted that there cannot be two separate investigation in respect of the same incident. It is further submitted that once the applicant No.1 has been acquitted by the competent court for the charges then he cannot be tried again for the same offence and verdict passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in criminal case is binding and conclusive in all proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. He further submits that regarding any occurrence being taken place inside the factory, the provisions as laid down in the Factories Act are applicable as warranted in the present incident. The facts stated in both, the complaint as well as in the FIR, relates to the same occurrence and the accident being fully covered by the penal provisions of the Factories Act in which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sec. 92 of the Factory Act, the general law of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable when the case is covered under the Special Act. The special Act shall prevail over the general law and the enquiry by the Factory Inspector bars any enquiry by the police under the provision of section 105 of the Factories Act as for as any offence/accident takes place in the factory premises. When already case has been filed under the Factories Act and same is decided continuation of the present proceeding in the Penal Sections of I.P.C. would cause miscarriage of justice therefore, the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants and order dated 18.07.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgarh taking cognizance for the offence under Sec. 288 and 304-A of I.P.C.be quashed.