[2025:JHHC:23852] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2464 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2464 of 2020 ------ 1. Arun Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Ramlakhan Ray, R/o DT-2143, HEC Colony, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi & Pin Code – 834004 (Jharkhand). 2. Suresh Drolia, aged about 67 years, S/o Bishwa Nath Drolia, R/o Maa Parvati Enclave, Block- C, Station Road, P.O, P.S Barbil, District- Kendujhar & Pin Code- 758035 (Odisha). … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Factory Inspector, Chaibasa Circle, Chaibasa, P.O., P.S. Chaibasa & District- West Singhbhum. … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate Mrs. Satakshi Priya Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.41 of 2018 and the order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2018 passed in the said case by which the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa and consequential relief. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 being the occupier and the petitioner No.2 being the Manager of M/s Balaji Industrial Engineering Limited, Bada Jamda, committed violation of Rule 55-A(1) of [2025:JHHC:23852] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2464 of 2020 the Bihar (Jharkhand) Factories Rules, 1950 and also Section 17, 33(1) of the Bihar Factories Act which is punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948; as after the worker of the said M/s Balaji Industrial Engineering Limited, Badajamba, met with an accident and sustained injury and the Factory Management intimated the Factory Inspector who inspected the place of occurrence and obtained the written statement of injury sustained. The Complainant- Factory Inspector directed to provide certain information and after conducting the enquiry, the complainant- Factory Inspector submitted his report on 24.11.2017 alleging therein, violation of Section 17 of the Factories Act read with Rule 55-A(1) of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. Subsequently, on 25.01.2018, the complainant submitted one amended enquiry report alleging therein violation of Section 33(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 in addition to the violations for which the earlier enquiry report was submitted. The complainant vide his letter dated 25.01.2018, requested for grant of sanction for prosecution and the sanction for the prosecution was accorded on 12.02.2018. The complainant filed the complaint on 13.02.2018 along with a petition for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay was caused because of the late receiving of administrative departmental sanction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that filing of the complaint is beyond a period of three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the complainant- Inspector on 02.11.2017 as on that date, he visited the factory and inspected the place of occurrence after coming to know about the said accident. It is [2025:JHHC:23852] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2464 of 2020 then submitted that therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, when the complaint was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of preliminary enquiry conducted by the petitioners himself on 02.11.2017. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J.J. Irani & Another vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 15 SCC 813 and submits that therein in the facts of that case, like this, when the Inspector was himself a part of the team which conducted preliminary inquiry between 05.03.1989 and 06.03.1989 and the inquiry was a detailed investigation going into all aspects of the occurrence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that it is not possible to hold that the Inspector of Factories, who undertook a detailed inquiry into the accident along with the Chief Inspector of Factories, remained ignorant that the offences in question have been allegedly committed and further held that it is proper to assume that an officer, conducting an investigation, comes to know as to what has happened, that being the only purpose of the investigation. Hence, it is submitted that as the complaint was filed beyond the period of three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, hence, the same be quashed and set aside. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Hari Krishna Budhia vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1848. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. [2025:JHHC:23852] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2464 of 2020 5. Learned AAG-II appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector is the date when the report was submitted by the Inspector and in this case, the report having been submitted on 24.11.2017. So, filing of the complaint on 13.02.2018 was within three months from 24.11.2017. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the complainant- Factory Inspector has himself conducted the preliminary inquiry on 02.11.2017. The enquiry report shows that the same was a detailed investigation coming into all aspects of the occurrence. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J.J. Irani & Another vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the facts of this case, the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector can safely be said to be 02.11.2017 but the complaint has been filed on 13.02.2018 i.e. beyond the period of three months. 7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa has certainly committed a grave mistake by still taking cognizance of the offence vide order dated 04.12.2018 ignoring the fact that the complaint was filed beyond the period of three months, from the date, on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the complainant- Inspector. Hence, [2025:JHHC:23852] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2464 of 2020 this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Complaint Case No.41 of 2018 is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Complaint Case No.41 of 2018 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Complaint Case No.41 of 2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 10. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No. 4372 of 2023 is disposed of being infructuous. 11. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 19.01.2021 is vacated. 12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of August, 2025 AFR/ Saroj