Judgment S.P.KHARE, J. ( 1. ) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the complaint in Criminal Case No. 99 of 1992 as against petitioner Shri R.N, Tata, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithampur, District-Dhar (Labour Court), for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and also the summons issued to him as per order dated February 29, 1993. ( 2. ) This Court has the powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as provided in Section 64(2) of the MP. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Therefore, it has the powers under Section 482 Cr PC also, that has been made clear by the High Court in Provident Fund Inspector v. Mohan Jute Mills Limited (\99S) MPLSR 353. ( 3. ) A complaint was filed on August 18, 1992 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Labour Court) against (1) Shri Ratan Tata, Chairman, Nelco Company, Bombay, (2) Shri Hukum Chand Jain, Vijay Nagar, Indore, and (3) Shri Ishaq Abraham (Manager). The name and address of the factory are shown as "Kohinoor Electronics Limited, S-4/1, Sector 1, Pithampur, District-Dhar", It is stated in the complaint that there is contravention, of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act inasmuch as the licence obtained under this Act was not displayed in the factory premises and it was not produced before the Inspector of Factories during the course of inspection done by him on May 19, 1992, There is an Inspection-note annexed to the complaint in which it is mentioned that during the course of inspection 13 persons whose names are given therein were found working in the factory. According to the recitals in the Inspection-note the manufacturing process was going on in the factory as the colour T. V. were being assembled in the brand name of "Nelco". There is a copy of notice dated May 19, 1992 addressed to three persons named above in which it is stated that the factory was being run without obtaining the licence as required by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. It is further stated that the Manager who was present in the factory premises gave the details of the "occupiers." ( 4. It is further stated that the Manager who was present in the factory premises gave the details of the "occupiers." ( 4. ) It is not spelt out in the complaint how accused No. 1 Shri Ratan Tata is connected with the affairs of the factory in the name of "Kohinoor Electronics Limited". It is not the case of the complainant that Shri Ratan Tata is one of the directors of Kohinoor Electronics Limited, it is not shown in the complaint what is the basis for impleading him as accused No. 1. ( 5. ) According to petitioner Ratan Tata he is not at all concerned with the factory of Kohinoor Electronics Limited. He is not the "Occupier" of the factory within the moaning of Section 2(n) of the Act. Therefore, it is contended that there was not sufficient ground for issuing summons against him by order dated February 29. 1993. It is stated that Shri Hukum Chand Jain is a Director of this company and he has been declared as "Occupier". Therefore, it is prayed that the complaint and the order Issuing summons on the basis of the said complaint against the petitioner be quashed. ( 6. ) The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose any prima facie case against him and, therefore, the summons could not be issued against him. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that the evidence in this case is yet to be recorded and sufficient proof would be given during the course of the trial to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. ( 7. ) The offence under Section 92 of the Act is said to have been committed for contravention of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. It is clear on reading Section 92 of the Act that it is "the occupier and the manager" of the factory who are guilty for such offence. In the present case the manager is said to be Shri Ishaq Abraham. It is clear on reading Section 92 of the Act that it is "the occupier and the manager" of the factory who are guilty for such offence. In the present case the manager is said to be Shri Ishaq Abraham. The definition of "occupier" given in Section 2(n) of the Act so far as it is relevant for the present purposes is: "2(n) - "occupier" of a factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory: Provided that (ii) in the case of a company, anyone of the directors shall be deemed to be the occupier". In J.K. Industries Limited v. Chief Inspector of Factories (1996) 6 SCC 665 : 1997-I-LLJ-722, the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 2(n) of the Act held that a director of a company can alone be the "occupier". In the present case Shri Hukum Chand Jain has been shown as one of the directors and thus the "Occupier" of the factory. The petitioner is admittedly not one of the directors of the "Kohinoor Electronics. Limited" and, therefore, he is not even prima facie covered by the definition of "occupier" and cannot be held guilty under Section 92 of the Act. ( 8. ) The question is whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the complaint as against the petitioner should be exercised by this Court, In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 it was laid down as proposition No. (ii) that the proceedings can be quashed where the allegations in the First Information Report or complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. Similarly In State of Haryanav. BhajanlalAIR 1992 SC604 : (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, one of the Illustrative categories for quashing the criminal proceedings is proposition No. 1 which is almost in the same language as used in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjabi (supra). Similarly In State of Haryanav. BhajanlalAIR 1992 SC604 : (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, one of the Illustrative categories for quashing the criminal proceedings is proposition No. 1 which is almost in the same language as used in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjabi (supra). Recently in R. Kalyani v. J.C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 : (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 77 it has been emphasised; "One of the paramount duties of the superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a wholly untenable complaint." The same principles have been reiterated in recent decisions Hiralal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 2380 : (2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 1085 (NOC) and Jugesh v. Shamser Singh (2009) 14 SCC 683 . ( 9. ) In the present case the petitioner is not said to be the "occupier" of the factory of "Kohinoor Electronics Limited" and, therefore, the complaint against him for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act is wholly untenable. He cannot be held liable for this offence even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety. Even if the allegations in the complaint are translated into formal proof there is not remotest possibility to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 92 of the Act as he is not said to be a director of Kohmoor Electronics Limited and, therefore, he cannot be held to be "occupier" of the factory. ( 10. ) In the result, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed. The complaint in the Criminal Case No. 99/92 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Labour Court), Dhar as against the petitioner and issuance of summons against him are quashed.