JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State. 2. These petitions have been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent these matters have been heard. 3. In these two petitions, common question of law are involved and that is why both the petitions have been heard together. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 in both the cases has left for his heavenly abode and death certificate is brought on record. 5. In view of her such submission, let the name of petitioner no. 1 in both the cases be deleted. 6. In Cr. M.P. No. 1204 of 2016, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 02.01.2016 passed in G.O. No. 489/2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela, whereby, cognizance under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners. In Cr. M.P. No. 1205 of 2016, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in G.O. No. 4/2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela, whereby, cognizance under Sections 92 and 96-A of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners. 7. In Cr. M.P. No. 1204 of 2016, the case was instituted stating therein that Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Factory Inspector, Saraikela, Kharsawan submitted the offence report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela stating therein that the petitioners had flouted the provisions contained under Section 7A(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rule 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Regulations, 1950 resulting of which an accident occurred in the premise of M/s Usha Martyn Ltd. (Usha Allies and Steel) on 08.07.2015 in the factory premise and one engineer namely Pravin Kumar had died in accident. In Cr. In Cr. M.P. No. 1205 of 2016, the case was instituted stating therein that Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Factory Inspector, Saraikela, Kharsawan submitted the offence report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela stating therein that the petitioners had flouted the provisions contained under Section 7A(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rule 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Regulations, 1950 resulting of which an accident occurred in the premise of M/s Usha Martyn Ltd. (Usha Allies and Steel) on 06.05.2015 in the factory premise and 9 staff members got injured who were sent to TATA Main Hospital, Jamshedpur and 4 staff members died in course of treatment due to burn injury. It was further alleged that in the SMS Plant of the factory where there is high possibility of fire no fire resistant cloth have been provided to the staff member. 8. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitions are fit to be allowed on the point of limitation as under Section 106 of the Factories Act, the period of limitation prescribed for three months for filing the complaint, under Section 92 of the Factories Act from the date of occurrence. She further submits that in Cr. M.P. No. 1204 of 2016, the date of occurrence was 08.07.2015 and the Deputy Chief Factory Inspector visited the place of occurrence on 09.07.2015. She also submits that the Factory Inspector made a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela on 30.12.2015 i.e. after 5 months from the information came to the knowledge of the Factory Inspector, which is not permitted under law. She submits that three months period from the date of occurrence completed on 08.10.2015. She further submits that in Cr. M.P. No. 1205 of 2016, the date of occurrence was 06.05.2015 and the Deputy Chief Factory Inspector visited the place of occurrence on the same day i.e. on 06.05.2015. She also submits that the Factory Inspector made a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela on 05.01.2016 i.e. after 8 months from the information came to the knowledge of the Factory Inspector, which is not permitted under law. She submits that three months' period from the date of occurrence completed on 06.08.2015. 9. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. She also submits that the Factory Inspector made a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela on 05.01.2016 i.e. after 8 months from the information came to the knowledge of the Factory Inspector, which is not permitted under law. She submits that three months' period from the date of occurrence completed on 06.08.2015. 9. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State by way of referring Section 106 of the Factories Act submits that the enquiry was going on and the court below has rightly held that it will be from the date of filing of the report. 10. For ready reference, Section 106 of the Factories Act reads as under: “106. Limitation of Prosecutions - No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues. (b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.” 11. On perusal of the complaint petitions, specifically the statements made in paragraph Nos. 3, it is crystal clear that it was in the knowledge of the Inspector that the occurrences took place on 08.07.2015 and 06.05.2015 respectively and the complaints were admittedly made on 30.12.2015 and 05.01.2016 respectively and the cognizance under Sections 92 and 96-A of the Factories Act were taken against the petitioners. 12. On bare perusal of Section 106 of the Factories Act (as quoted herein above), it is also crystal clear that the law with regard to filing of the complaint under the Factories Act is within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the occurrence. 13. 12. On bare perusal of Section 106 of the Factories Act (as quoted herein above), it is also crystal clear that the law with regard to filing of the complaint under the Factories Act is within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the occurrence. 13. It is an admitted fact that the complaints were made on 30.12.2015 and 05.01.2016 respectively. However, the occurrences took place on 08.07.2015 and 06.05.2015 respectively. From the complaints itself in paragraph nos. 3, it is clear that it was in the knowledge of the Inspector that the occurrence took place on 08.07.2015 and 06.05.2015 and there is no provision of condonation of delay. The finding of the court below about the knowledge of date of filing of the report is erroneous as Section 106 of the said Act clearly speaks that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaints thereof are made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. The Court has also perused the cognizance orders dated 02.01.2016 and 06.01.2016 and finds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela has taken cognizance in format thereby he has filled up the lines and Section. It appears that he has not applied his judicial mind in orders taking cognizance. The complaint petitions itself are time barred under Section 106 of the Factories Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.O. No. 489/2015 and G.O. No. 4/2016, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela including the order dated 02.01.2016 passed in G.O. No. 489/2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela and the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in G.O. No. 4/2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela are, hereby, quashed. 15. Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petitions stand allowed and disposed of. 16. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.