JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR dated 21.03.2015, on the basis of which, Changsari P.S. Case No. 58/2015 under Sections 120 (B)/287/338 IPC has been registered and also the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rangia, in the aforesaid case, taking cognizance of offence against the accused petitioners under the aforesaid Sections. 2. The factual background of the case in a nutshell is that the first informant Sri. Mahidhar Kalita, who is the respondent no. 2 of the present petition sustained serious injurious in his right hand, while he was working as an employee of the Lakshmi Narayan Cartoon Company at Sinduri Ghopa. Blaming the owner and supervisor of the company for their negligence, he filed an FIR with O/C Changsari Police Station, on the basis of which Changsari P.S. Case No. 58/2015 under Sections 120(B)/287/338 IPC has been registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners, who are the partners and employees respectively of the said company namely, M/S Laxminarayan Kraft Industries, which is a registered Partnership firm. 3. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and issued process, vide order dated 06.07.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet, as well as the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the accused petitioners. 5. Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant was an employee of the Partnership firm namely, M/S Laxminarayan Kraft Industries, which is a factory within the meaning of Section 2 (m) (i) of the Factories Act, 1948 and as per Section 7A, it is incumbent on the part of the occupier of the factory to ensure safety of the employees working in the factory and he is to ensure that the plant and machineries and other systems of work in the factory are maintained properly and are safe and without risks to the health of the employees. It is obligatory on his part to ensure safety of all the workers working in the factory and to ensure that the machines and systems are in safe condition. For contravention of Section 7A, the occupier is liable to be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the general law of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable when the case is covered under the Special Act. The Special Act shall prevail over the general law. For such incident the Factory Inspector is the competent person to file a complaint. 8. Learned P.P. in controversion submitted that since the offence was allegedly committed under the provisions of the IPC, there is no bar for the Court to take cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet filed by the police. 9. Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 provides as under:- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector. (2) No Court below that of a Presidency Magistrate or of a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. 10. Aforesaid Sections makes it amply clear that unless a complaint is filed by an Inspector of Factory, the Court cannot take cognizance of offence committed under the Act. 11. In Binod Kumar Mittal v. The State of Jharkhand, it has been observed that the provision of the Factories act thus stipulate relating to investigation, enquiry or trial of the offences falling within the provision of the Factories Act and, therefore, the Factories Act being a special legislation provision of it would prevail over the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the investigation, enquiry or the trial relating to the matter falling within the special legislation is not permissible to be gone into under the general law. 12. In this context, I may refer to Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the matter regarding investigation and enquiry of the case falling under the IPC or any Special Act which reads as under:- "Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other Law:- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (46 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise death with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." 13. Section 4 also provides that if an enactment regulates the manner of investigation, such enactment will prevail over the code and the provisions of special or local law will prevail over the provisions contained in the Code unless there is specific provisions to the contrary. 14. In the instant case, the informant was injured, while working in the Factory and he has lodged the FIR before police alleging negligence against the owners whose duty is to maintain the systems and machines in safe condition, on his failure to do so, he can be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 15. Section 105 of the Factories Act bars taking of cognizance by any Court except on complaint by the Factory Inspector or with previous sanction of the inspector. 16. The above being the position of law, the FIR filed by the informant is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. 17. Consequently, the charge-sheet filed on the basis of that FIR, as well as the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance are also liable to be quashed which I accordingly do.