[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Karnataka vs Vijay Murgesh Nirani on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). OF 2025
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).5510 of 2025)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
VIJAY MURGESH NIRANI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length.
2. Leave granted.
3. The complaint under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, was preferred by the
complainant i.e., State of Karnataka under the provisions
of the Factories Act, 1948. On presentation, the learned
Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mudhol, passed an
order dated 01.10.2019 which reads as under:
“This complainant is under Rule 83 3(1)
of Karnataka Factories Rules 1969 and
u/sec 7A 2(A) age 92 of Factories Act,
1948 R/w Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. Complainant
is Assistant Director of Factories
Belagavi Division-2, Belagavi.
As provided under the proviso (a) of
sec.200 of Cr.P.C. the complainant being
government servant in discharge of her
official duties filed this complaint and
hence sworn statement is dispensed with.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2025.08.28
Perused the contents of complaint the
19:27:45 IST
Reason: documents produced with the complaitn
prima facie case made out and hence
issuance of process to accused No.1 and 21
are necessary to try the offence leveled
against them and hence the following
order is passed:
Order
Register the case in Register No.II for
the offence punishable under rule 833(1)
of Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 and
u/s 74 2(a) and 92 of Factories Act,
1948. Issue process against accused No.1
and 2. If necessary copies are furnished
with requisite process fee.”
4. However, the respondents herein challenged the issue of
process, by way of Criminal Petition No.102303 of 2019
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which stands allowed by the High Court in terms of the
impugned order, which reads as under:
“Heard Sri V.M.Sheelvant on behalf of the
petitioners and learned High Court
Government Pleader for first respondent.
Second respondent though served remained
absent.
2. Petitioners have been prosecuted for
the offences punishable under Sections
83, 3(1) of Karnataka Factories Rules,
1969 and Section 7A, 2(A) and 92 of
Factories Act, 1948 in respect of a fatal
accident that took place in the precincts
of the distillery plant belonging to the
petitioners. The civil liability is
satisfied by the petitioners herein and
in that regard an affidavit came to be
filed.
3. Further, no previous sanction has
obtained before launching the prosecution
against petitioners and thereby the very
initiation of criminal proceedings stood
vitiated.
4. Accordingly, continuation of the
criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of process of law. Hence, a case is
made out for quashing pending criminal
proceedings.
2
5. Accordingly, following order is
passed.
ORDER
Taking note of the payment of
compensation to the dependents of the
deceased employee and for want of
previous sanction, pending criminal
proceedings in C.C..No.977/2019 on the
file of Principal Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Mudhol is hereby quashed by
allowing the petition.”
5. We find that the order, to say the least, is absolutely
cryptic. The Court has not even perused and considered the
contents of the complaint as the relevant statutory
provisions. The complaint was preferred by the State on
behalf of the Inspector, who was duly authorized person to
institute the same.
6. In this regard, we refer to Section 105 of the
Factories Act, 1948, which reads as under:
“Section 105. Cognizance of offences.—
(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.”
7. Since the complaint is filed by the duly authorized
Inspector himself, there was no requirement for any
previous written sanction of the competent authority in
filing the same.
8. In this view of the matter, we quash and set aside the
3
impugned order dated 26.07.2023 in Criminal Petition
No.102303 of 2019 and restore the criminal proceedings in
C.C. No.977/2019 to its original number on the file of the
learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mudhol.
9. We direct the parties to cooperate fully during the
trial/enquiry.
10. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on
06.10.2025. Hearing is expedited.
11. All contentions, except for prior sanction, are left
open.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
26th AUGUST 2025
4
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5510/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-07-2023
in CRLP No.102303/2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench at Dharwad]
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
VIJAY MURGESH NIRANI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 26-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTAFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G.
Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AORFor Respondent(s) :
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kadkol, Adv.
Mr. Agam Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv.
Mr. Meenish Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Anil C. Nishani, Adv.
M/S. Dubey & Chandra Law Chambers, AORUpon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order,
which is placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(D. NAVEEN) (ANU BHALLA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
5
[ad_2]
Source link