(2025:JHHC:32054) Cr.M.P. No.2994 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2994 of 2025 1. Mahabir Prasad Rungta, aged about 70 yrs., s/o Ramkumar Rungta, r/o S-75, Block- S, Panchsheel Park, P.O. & P.S.-Panchsheel Enclave, Dist.-South Delhi 2. Sandeep Kumar Goyal, aged about 51 yrs., s/o late Ghisha Lal Goel, r/o 501 Hariom Tower, Residential Circular Road, P.O.-Ranchi GPO, P.S.-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi 3. Smt. Shweta Aditya Rashiwasia, aged about 45 yrs., w/o Aditya Raswasia, r/o B-6, Darya Mahal, 1st Floor, 80, Naapean Sea Road, Near Chandralok, P.O. & P.S.-Chandralok, Dist.-Mumbai, Maharastra-400006 4. Jignash Moolshanker Dave @ Jignash Mulshanker Dave, aged about 47 yrs., s/o Mulshankar Narmadshankar Dave, r/o 64, Krushan Vihar, GETCO (GED), Near ITI Chokdi, Uttarsanda, P.O. & P.S.- Kheda, Dist.-Kheda, State-Gujarat .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand through Factory Inspector, Bokaro …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with (2025:JHHC:32054) Cr.M.P. No.2994 of 2025 2 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case (Factory) No.1550 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Indian Factory Act 1948 as amended in 1987 including the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro whereby and where under, the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Indian Factory Act 1948 as amended in 1987. 3. 3. The allegation against the petitioners are that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 being the Additional Director, petitioner no.3 being the Director of Maa Kali Papers Limited; whereas the petitioner no.4 being the Factory Manager of the said factory and one of the co- accused- Rohit Garg (not a petitioner of this case) being the owner-cum-occupier of the said factory had contraband the Rule 56 (C) (1a) and (1c), Section 32 (b) & (c), Section 7A (2) (c), Section 88 of the Factory Act as well as Rule 8 (1), 8 (2), 8 (3) and 11, Rule 12A to 96 (1) & (2) and Rule 106 in respect of the said factory Maa Kali Papers Limited. 4. On the basis of the official complaint filed by the complainant- Factory Inspector, Bokaro, Circle II, Bokaro, the learned In-charge, S.D.J.M., Bokaro has taken cognizance under Section 92 of the Indian Factory Act as amended in 1987. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 92 of the Indian Factory Act envisaged punishment for the occupier and the manager of the factory if held guilty for the (2025:JHHC:32054) Cr.M.P. No.2994 of 2025 3 offence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner under Section 92 of Indian Factory Act only the occupier and the manager of the factory can be prosecuted but as admittedly, petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 were neither the occupier nor the manager of the factory hence, the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Indian Factory Act, 1948 be quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand fairly submits that even as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are neither the occupier nor the manager of the factory. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, Section 92 of Indian Factory Act which reads as under:- 92. General penalty for offences.—Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years] or with fine which may extend to [one lakh rupees] or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to [one thousand rupees] for each day on which the contravention is so continued: [Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under Section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than [twenty-five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing death, and [five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury. (2025:JHHC:32054) Cr.M.P. No.2994 of 2025 4 Explanation.—In this section and in Section 94 “serious bodily injury” means an injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use of, or permanent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to, sight or hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of bone or joint (not being fracture of more than one bone or joint) of any phalanges of the hand or foot.] makes it abundantly clear that if there is any contravention of any of the provision of the Indian Factory Act or Rules made thereunder or of any order in writing made thereunder, only the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence. So, the natural corollary is that it is only the occupier and the manager of the factory who can be prosecuted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Indian Factory Act, 1948. 8. As is evident from the running page no.16 of the brief which is the first page of the complaint, it has categorically been mentioned that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are Additional Director and petitioner no.3 is the Director of the said factory. It has also been specifically mentioned that Shri Rohit Garg is the occupier and the petitioner no.4 is the factory manager. 9. Under such circumstances, as admittedly the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are neither the occupier or the factory manager hence, this Court is of the considered view that cognizance against them is bad in law and the continuation of the criminal proceeding against them will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case (Factory) No.1550 of 2024 including the order (2025:JHHC:32054) Cr.M.P. No.2994 of 2025 5 dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 but so far as the petitioner no.4 is concerned, he is the factory manager and he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 92 of Indian Factory Act, 1948 and hence, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the prosecution against the petitioner no.4 in view of the direct and specific allegation against him. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case (Factory) No.1550 of 2024 including the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 only. 11. It is made clear that prosecution will continue against the rest two accused persons of the case namely Rohit Garg and the petitioner no.4 of the criminal miscellaneous petition. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th October, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 30/10/2025