- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3745 CRL.P No. 103871 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103871 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R.K.GOYAL, OCCUPIER M/S KALYANI STEELS LTD., AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HOSPET ROAD, GINEGERA, KOPPAL-583228. 2. SRI. SUBHANKAR ASHUTOSH PAL FACTORY MANAGER, M/S KALYANI STEELS LTD., AGE. 57 YEARS, HOSPET ROAD, GINEGERA, KOPPAL-583228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AT THE INSTANCE OF SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR B., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES, KOPPAL DIVISION, (AN INSPECTOR APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 8(1) FACTORIES ACT, 1948) NO.08-02/145/C, FIRST FLOOR, BEHIND ESI DISPENSARY, DR. SIMPILLINGANNA ROAD, BEHIND ESI DISPENSARY, KOPPAL-584101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEARING PCR NO.582/2024 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 92 OF FACTORIES ACT, 1948 REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 223 OF BNSS ACT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. KOPPAL VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3745 CRL.P No. 103871 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken of the offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1969. 2. The respondent filed a private complainant stating that on 29.05.2024, a fatal accident had taken place on the factory premises due to the elevation of carbon monoxide gas, resulting in the death of a worker. 3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent – State. 4. The respondent had issued a detailed accident investigation report cum show-cause notice dated 29.05.2024, seeking reasons as to why action should not be taken regarding the accident that resulted in the death of a worker. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 12.08.2024. 5. The complainant, without passing an order on the said reply, filed a private complainant. 6. The respondent had also lodged a similar complainant before the jurisdictional police in Crime No.88/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 337 of IPC. The police, after - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3745 CRL.P No. 103871 of 2024 investigation, submitted a ‘B’ report, which was accepted by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 14.10.2024. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint making similar allegations. 7. A coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mr. K. Rajashekhar Reddy v. The State of Karnataka, in Crl.P.No.102567/2022 : DD 14.10.2022, observed as follows: “Para 5. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. No. 2570/2021 and connected matter has held that though there is no provision under the Factories Act that the Authorities concerned should pass an order to the reply submitted by the occupier or the factory manager, principles of natural justice require such an order to be passed, otherwise the purpose of giving right to the occupier or the factory manager to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of Factories Act becomes redundant. In the instant case, the respondents having issued the show cause notice and the accused having submitted the reply to the said show cause notice, it was incumbent on the respondents to consider and pass appropriate order so as to enable the petitioners-accused to file an appeal as specified under Section 107 of the Factories Act.” 8. Even otherwise, the respondent, having prosecuted the petitioner for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, could not have filed a private complainant under the Factories Act. The police, after investigation, submitted a ‘B’ report stating that the accident was not on account of the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The private complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. 9. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3745 CRL.P No. 103871 of 2024 ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The FIR registered in PCR.No.582/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 registered under Section 223 of BNSS Act, of the file of Hon’ble Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, in respect of petitioners/accused herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0