RAJESH SAIGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint No.1928 of 2012 dated 03.12.2012 titled as 'State of Haryana through Assistant Director, Industrial & Health Gurgaon-I vs. Rajesh Sehgal and another' along with consequential proceedings initiated thereupon and summoning order dated 20.02.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.

(2.) It is mainly stated in the petition that the criminal complaint and the consequent proceedings are misuse and abuse of process of the law. The petitioner is occupier and Sh.Imran Khan, who is named in the criminal complaint as accused No.2, was the then Manager of the Food Laboratory of M/s Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. Imran Khan has resigned from the company on 28.02.2013. The company has taken the premises on lease after taking the consent of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. It is further stated in the petition that Food Laboratory of M/s Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. is covered under the provisions of Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. Accordingly, the Food Laboratory of the company has also duly obtained the Registration Certificate under the provisions of aforesaid Act. The said certificate was issued by the Labour Department after inspecting the premises of the company. Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel appeared, filed reply and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the complaint was filed by the State through Assistant Director, Industrial & Health Gurgaon-I against Rajesh Sehgal (Saigal) and Imran Khan by mainly stating that accused are the Occupier/Manager of M/s Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. An inspection was conducted by Er.Deepak Malik, Assistant Director (1S&H) Gurgaon-1 and Dr.D.S.Deswal, Asstt. Direction (III) Gurgaon on 04.09.2012 and they noticed violations under the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules framed thereunder. It is stated that Occupier/Manager were engaged in the testing, inspection, certification of materials of the food item with the aid of 30 workers and electric power of 250 K.V.A, hence the establishment is coverable under Section 2m (i) of the Factories Act, 1948 but Occupier/Manager failed to show the proof of submission of Factory licence fee under Factories Act upto year 2012 along with Form No.2. In the complaint, so many violations have been pointed out under the Factories Act, 1948.

(3.) At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on one point only that Food Laboratory of the Company does not fall under the definition of "Factory" as given in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, which is reproduced as under:- (m) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof-