- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102524 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. K. GOYAL, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCCUPIER M/S. KALYANI STEELS LTD. POST. HOSPET ROAD, GINEGERA, DIST. KOPPAL-583228. 2. SRI. SUBHANKAR ASHUTOSH PAL, AGE: 57 YEARS, FACTORY MANAGER OCC. M/S KALYANI STEELS LTD, POST. HOSPET ROAD, GINEGERA, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-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, KOPPAL 584101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, H.C.G.P.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEARING PCR NO.201/2025 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 92 OF THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOPPAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the entire proceedings in private complaint bearing No.PCR No.201 of 2025 pending on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Koppal, registered for an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act'). 2. Heard Sri Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. Petitioner No.1 is the occupier of the factory and petitioner No.2 is the Manager of the factory. The factory is registered in the name and style of M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited, Hospet Road, Ginegera, Koppal. On receiving the information that there was an accident in the premises of the factory and one Hanumanta sustained multiple - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 injuries, the Assistant Director of Factories, Koppal Division, inspected the factory premises, collected information from the said injured, and issued notice on 17.12.2024 to the petitioners to show cause in writing within seven days. Pursuant to the same, on 25.01.2025, the petitioners submitted their reply to the respondent- Assistant Director of Factories. However, the respondent, without passing any orders on the reply submitted by the petitioners, proceeded to initiate criminal action against them under Section 92 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that once the petitioners submitted their reply to the notice issued by the respondent, the latter ought to have passed an order either accepting or rejecting the reply, so that, the petitioners could prefer an appeal as envisaged under Section 107 of the Act, in case they are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent. He has further contended that the criminal action initiated by the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 justice and for this reason, the complaint lodged against the petitioners cannot be sustained. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the proceedings. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State has contended that the Act does not contemplate the passing of any order pursuant to the reply given by the petitioners, and straight away complaint can be initiated for the offences under the Act, once the concerned authority notices deficiencies in the factory premises. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Section 92 of the Act is a penal provision to take action against the occupier or the factory manager for contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rule 14(c) of the Factories Rules, 1969, enables the Inspector to initiate prosecution. 7. In the case on hand, once the respondent- Assistant Director of Factories issued a notice to the petitioners requiring them to show cause in writing within - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 seven days and thereafter the petitioners submitted a reply showing cause for the notice issued to them, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to have passed the order either accepting or rejecting the reply submitted by the petitioners. This is necessary because Section 107 of the Act enables them to prefer an appeal if at all they are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent. Though there is no specific provision under the Act that the concerned authority should pass an order on 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 the right to the occupier or the factory manager to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act becomes redundant. 8. What can be noticed in this petition is that, without resorting to the procedure, the respondent- Assistant Director of Factories directly initiated prosecution against the petitioners. Therefore, their prosecution cannot be sustained. The same view has been taken by a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2570 of 2021 connected with Criminal Petition No.2594 of 2021 disposed off on 10.08.2021, as well as by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101483 of 2023 and connected matters, disposed off on 15.07.2024. 9. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following O R D E R i. Criminal petition is allowed, and ii. The entire proceedings in private complaint bearing No.PCR No.201 of 2025 pending on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Koppal, registered for an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, are quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8323 CRL.P No. 102524 of 2025 It is made clear that the present order does not come in the way of the respondent taking action afresh in accordance with law. In view of the disposal of the main petition, interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed off. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15