Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1383 (MP)

Naresh v. State of M. P.

2014-10-29

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER 1. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of the complaint filed against the present applicants under sections 7A(2)B, 7A(2)C and Rules 73E read with section 92 of the Factories Act. 2. Brief facts relating to this application are that on 14.11.2011, an accident took place in the factory of which the present applicants were managers and the name of the factory was Bhandari Foils and Tubes Limited. At the time of accident, at about 10 a.m., a Coil weighing two tonnes was unloaded with the help of a Crane from the truck and was placed on the Trolly which was operated on a rail track by pushing it manually. The Coil was placed in vertical position on the Trolly. The width of Coil was 25.5 cm while its diameter was 5 feet. It was not properly tied with the help of the rope to the Trolly. As a result, when the Trolly was being pushed by one labourer Manohar Mandloi and his assistant and the Trolly was not moving further, the deceased Amratesh Jain tried to help them. They were pushing the Trolly and at that moment, the Coil fell down from the Trolly over the deceased Amratesh Jain and due to which, he sustained serious brain injuries and subsequently died. The enquiry was made by the Factory Inspector Rajesh Yadav and on the basis of his enquiry the complaint under section 92 of the Factories Act was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dewas. 3. Apart from this, complaint on the basis of the same facts, another charge-sheet under section 304A and 279 of IPC was also filed by Police Station Industrial State, District Dewas. 4. This application is filed for quashment of the complaint filed under section 92 of the Factories Act on the ground that the deceased Amratesh Jain was not ordered to take part in the activity of pushing the Trolly. He, by himself, tried to help the labourers, who were pushing the Trolly and in that process, the Coil fell on him due to which, he died. As such, he was doing an un-authorised act and, therefore, the present applicants are not responsible. 5. It is also asserted that Amratesh Jain was a graduate engineer trainee and it was not his job to push the Trolly. 6. As such, he was doing an un-authorised act and, therefore, the present applicants are not responsible. 5. It is also asserted that Amratesh Jain was a graduate engineer trainee and it was not his job to push the Trolly. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of D. Kumarswamy (Major) v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.11146/2012. In this case, the deceased was engaged as a mason by subcontractor of GMS Elegant Builders India Pvt. Ltd. The subcontractor was not engaged to perform activity of the factory. They were only to perform other non-core activities such as, housekeeping, security, gardening and waste disposal. The deceased was cleaning wooden pieces known as ‘Matta Kolu’, which was using for leveling cement plaster by the masons. He was using grinding machine to remove the cement from the instrument. During the process, grinding wheel of the machine broke into pieces and one of the pieces struck the workman causing serious injuries to him due to which he subsequently died. He has also place reliance on the judgment delivered by the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Revision No.506/2005 in the matter of JJ Irani v State of Jharkhand. In this case, the ‘Gandola’ was being moved on the rail track. The duty of the deceased was to signal the loco driver to move ahead on assuring that the rail track is free from any obstacle. However, without assuring that he signaled the loco driver, due to which, the wheel of Gandola jumped over the obstacle and the material placed on the Gandola fell over the body of the deceased due to which he died. 7. However in the present case, firstly, the applicants directly approached this Court without first applying before the concerning Court whether, they being occupier and manager of the factory were responsible for the accident or not. No finding of the lower Court is there on record. Further the facts of the present case are different then the facts of the case he placed reliance on. In both the above cases, there was negligence on the part of the deceased. In first case the workman was performing an un-authorised act of cleaning his instrument using the machine not meant for that purpose and he was not cautious enough to run the machinery. 8. In both the above cases, there was negligence on the part of the deceased. In first case the workman was performing an un-authorised act of cleaning his instrument using the machine not meant for that purpose and he was not cautious enough to run the machinery. 8. In the present case, however the activity was an authorised activity however, negligent lie in not tieing the Coil properly to the Trolly and placing the Coil vertically on the Trolly. The Trolly was being pushed manually and there was no illegality in helping the other labourers as such prima facie, there appears to be no reason to interfere by using the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under section 482 of CrPC to this Court. However, the present applicants are free to move to the lower Court and get decided the various issues raised by him before this Court. 9. With these observations, I find that no case for interfering under section 482 of CrPC is made out. The application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.