Bombay High Court

Ram Bharat vs State Of Maharashtra At The Instance Of ... on 15 September, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:9088




              Judgment

                                                                   473 wp30.25



                                           1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 2025

              Ram Bharat,
              age-46 years,
              occupier of
              Patanjali Foods Limited,
              having its residence address at,
              house No.90,
              Vidya Vihar Colony,
              Kankhal - Haridwar,
              Uttarakhand - India
              249408.                            ..... Petitioner.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              State of Maharashtra,
              at the instance of J.P.Moharkar
              Deputy Director,
              Industrial Safety & Health,
              Nagpur.                             ..... Respondent.

              Shri Kushal Mor, Counsel and Shri Rohan Deo, Advocate
              for the Petitioner.
              Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel)
              assisted by Shri Anant Ghongare, Addl.P.P. for Respondent/
              State.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 13/08/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 15/09/2025
                                                                       .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                          473 wp30.25



                                2

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri Kushal Mor for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor Shri

D.V.Chauhan for the State. Rule. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing

and setting aside criminal complaint bearing Summary

Criminal Case No.3184/2024 filed before learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and also

seeks quashing and setting aside order of issuance of

summons dated 4.9.2024.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner is the occupier of "Patanjali

Foods Limited" having its registered office at 616, Tulsiani

Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. The petitioner's

company is a leading Consumer Food Company known

.....3/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

for its commitment to quality and excellent in edible oil,

soya products, and consumer food manufacturing.

Complainant Shri J.P.Moharkar, Deputy Director,

Industrial Safety and Health, Nagpur visited the factory

namely "Patanjali Foods Limited", situated at Butibori-

Umrer Road, Nagpur on 14.12.2023 and 15.12.2023 for

enquiry as to the fatal accident occurred in the factory

wherein one Rajendra Dewade fell from the Cooling

Tower Area on 13.12.2023 and died. The petitioner is

the occupier of the said factory. The factory is engaged in

manufacturing of edible oil by solvent extraction plant.

There are four Water Cooling Towers having a Common

Cooling Water Tank. The Water Tank contains water upto

a height of 3 meters. Out of 4 Cooling Towers, Cooling

Tower Nos.1 and 2 are not working due to damage.

Cooling Tower Nos.3 and 4 are in working condition.

There is a pump house with RCC Slab near Cooling

.....4/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

Tower No.4. The top level of Cooling Tower NO.4 and

RCC Slab of the pump house are the same. One

temporary wooden plant (1.5. meters in length by1 meter

in width) was laid in between the top level Cooling

Tower No.4 and RCC Slab of the pump house. It was

used as walkway to move from slab of pump house and

top of Cooling Tower NO.4 and vice versa. One Rajendra

Dewade was employed as a Contract Worker in the

factory through Contractor M/s.Shiv Shiva Consultant for

the last two years. On 13.12.2023, he reported on duty

at 9:30 am and came to the cooling tower area of the

factory. Cooling Tower Nos.3 and 4 were taken under

shut-down for maintenance on the same day. At about

4:00 pm, Shri Dewade climbed on the top of the RCC

Slab of the pump house and, thereafter, went on the top

of Cooling Tower No.4 by walking on the wooden board

which laid between top level of Cooling Tower No.4 and

.....5/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

RCC Slab of the pump house. Being the wooden board

became fragile, it was broken and the deceased fell and

sustained injuries and died on the spot. During enquiry

by the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety & Health,

Nagpur, it revealed that the petitioner has committed an

offence under Section 32(a) punishable under Section 92

of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, he filed the

complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. Perusal of the complaint,

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued

process.

4. Being aggrieved with the same, the present

petition is filed for quashing of the proceeding and order

of issuance of summons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that it was sheer negligence of the deceased who has to

.....6/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

use ladder, but he has used the short cut method and the

plank was placed by the worker and he fell down. There

was a compliance of Section 32 of the Factories Act, but it

was the worker due to whose negligence the alleged

incident has occurred. He invited my attention to

Section 7-A of the Factories Act which deals with general

duties of the occupier and submitted that the general

duties are complied by the petitioner. The continuation

of the said criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of

process of law a the recital of the compliant neither

discloses prima facie commission of an offence as

alleged or at all against the petitioner nor shows a prima

facie role played by the petitioner. He further

submitted that learned Judge below should have

conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC

before issuing the process either by Trial Court or by

directing the concerned police authorities to conduct

.....7/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

investigation. However, no such order under Section 202

of the CrPC is passed in the present case and, therefore,

order of issuance of process by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the

these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the proceeding.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

for the petitioners has placed reliance on following

decisions:

1. Sivagnanamoorthy and ors vs. Deputy Director-1, Industrial Safety and Health, reported in MANU/TN/0262/2022;

2. D.S.Chavan and ors vs. P.K.Krishnan, reported in MANU/MH/1127/2015;

3. D.Kumarswamy and ors vs. State of Karnataka, reported in MANU/KA/3011/2013;

4. S.Aswin Chandran and ors vs. The State and ors, reported in MANU/TN/4631/2022;

.....8/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

5. J.J.Irani and ors vs. The State of Jharkhand and ors, reported in MANU/JH/1871/2012,

6. Lalankumar Singh and ors vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383;

7. Aristides Protonotatios and ors vs. State of Karnataka, reported in MANU/KA/65879/2019, and

8. Nees Wadai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, thr. its Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 7210.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the

State submitted that death of the deceased is caused

during the course of his employment. The object of the

enactment requires to be looked into. The Factories Act is

enacted primarily object of protecting workers engaged in

factories against the Industrial and Occupational Hazards

by seeking to impose upon owners or occupiers the

certain obligations for protecting workers and securing .....9/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

for them employment in condition conductive to their

health and safety. He submitted that the statement of

Manager of the factory itself shows that one wooden

plank was kept to use to approach the top level of

Cooling Tower No.4 and RCC Slab of the pump house. It

was used as a walkway to move from slab of pump house

and top of Cooling Tower No.4 and vice versa. In view of

Section 32 of the Factories Act, it is obligatory on the part

of the occupier to provide the safety measures to

approach Cooling Tower No.4 and the pump house.

Thus, there is contravention of Section 32 which is

punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. He

submitted that defence of the accused cannot be seen at

this stage. He also invited my attention to reply to the

show cause notice and the statement of the Manager

recorded. He submitted that as per the contention of the

petitioner even the Factory Manager was not aware about

.....10/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

the use of the plank by the workers. However, the

statement of Manager shows that on the day of the

incident, when the deceased approached the Cooling

Tower No.4 and RCC Slab of the pump house, the

Manager was supervising the same and the accused and

the accident in his presence. It is pertinent to note that

provisions of Section 7-A of the Factories Act elaborate

the duties of the occupier wherein it is also made clear

that it is the ultimate responsibility of the occupier to

ensure health, safety and welfare of all the workers

working in the factory at all locations of the factory

premises. Therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner to

install appropriate and safe way for the employees to

approach the place to be maintained and prepared by

him in regular course of his work. As per the enquiry

report of complainant the Deputy Director, Industrial

Safety and Health the wooden board laid between the top

.....11/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

of Cooling Tower No.4 and RCC Slab of the pump house

was used as a walkway and this fragile wooden board

was not of a sound construction and was not properly

maintained by the occupier to ensure the safety of worker

working on it. Therefore, it is apparent that the

petitioner who is occupier of the factory has contravened

the provisions of Section 32(a) of the Factories Act.

8. After hearing both the sides and perusing the

complaint as well as various documents filed on record, it

discloses the petitioner was owner of the said factory

which covers within the definition of occupier. Form No.1

shows the petitioner as occupier of the said factory.

There is no dispute as to the incident which shows that

on the day of the incident i.e. 13.12.2013 the deceased

approached top level of Cooling Tower No.4 and RCC

Slab of the pump house and while approaching the Tower

.....12/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

No.4, he has used one temporary wooden plank which

was broken and he fell and succumbed to the injuries.

The enquiry was conducted by the complainant and

statement of Manager Manoj Nimbhulkar of the said

factory was recorded, who stated that on the day of the

incident, the deceased, at about 4:00 pm, from staircase

of the pump house went to the slab and by using wooden

plank, approached to Cooling Tower No.4 for giving

support to the pipeline of the tower and while returning

back, the plank was broken and he fell on the ground and

succumbed to the injuries. At the relevant time, he was

supervising the work of the said worker. After reporting

of the said incident, the show cause notice was given to

the petitioner and while replying the same, he mentioned

that he has no personal role in the incident as the factory

was being run under the control of the factory Manager

and denied his liability.

.....13/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

9. It is further contention of learned counsel for

the petitioner that the deceased was not employee of the

factory owned by him as he was employed by the

contractor basis and as per the agreement, it was the

contractor who is responsible to pay compensation or for

any untoward incident, if happened, and, therefore, the

petitioner is not liable. Condition No.10 of the

agreement between M/s.Parakram Security India Limited

vs. M/s.Shiv Shiva Consultant shows that safety of the

workers will be responsibility of the second party. No

legal liability shall raise on the company in case of any

accident due to negligence on the part of the workers and

employees employed by them. All types of personal

protection equipment shall be provided by first party. In

view of the above said condition, the petitioner is not

responsible for any act which is caused death of the

deceased due to his own negligence.

.....14/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

10. Before entering into the merits of the matter, it

is necessary to mention some provisions of the Factories

Act.

11. Section 2(n) defines "occupier" which means

that a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of

the factory, provided that (i) in the case of a firm or other

association of individuals, any one of the individual

partners or members thereof shall be deemed to be the

occupier; (ii) in the case of a company, any one of the

directors shall be deemed to be the occupier; and (iii) in

the case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central

Government or any State Government, or any local

authority, the person or persons appointed to manage the

affairs of the factory by the Central Government, the

Stale Government or the local authority, as the case may

be, shall be deemed to be the occupier.

.....15/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

12. Section 2(l) defines "worker" means a person

6[employed, directly or by or through any agency

(including a contractor) with or without the knowledge

of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or

not], in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any

part of the machinery or premises used for a

manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work

incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing

process, or the subject of the manufacturing process [but

does not include any member of the armed forces of the

Union.

13. Thus, in view of definition given under Section

2(n), even the person employed through any agency

including contractor with or without the knowledge of

the principal employer is covered under the definition of

"worker".

.....16/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

14. Section 7-A of the Factories Act, speaks about

general duties of the occupier, which is reproduced as

under:

"7-A. General duties of the occupier.--(1) Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the matters to which such duty extends, shall include--

(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work in the factory that are safe and without risks to health;

(b) the arrangements in the factory for ensuring safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;

.....17/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

(c) the provisions of such information, instruction, training and supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers at work;

(d) the maintenance of all places of work in the factory in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of such means of access to, and egress from, such places as are safe and without such risks;

(e) the provision, maintenance or monitoring of such working environment in the factory for the workers that is safe, without risks to health and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.

(3) Except in such cases as may be prescribed, every occupier shall prepare, and, as often as may be appropriate, revise, a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety of the workers at work

.....18/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

and the organisation and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision thereof to the notice of all the workers in such manner as may be prescribed".

15. Section 32 of the Factories Act deals with

floors, stairs, and means of access. In view of Section 32,

in every factory ---

(a) all floors, steps, stairs, passages and gangways shall be of sound construction and properly maintained and shall be kept free from obstructions and substances likely to cause persons to slip, and where it is necessary to ensure safety, steps, stairs, passages and gangways shall be provided with substantial handrails;

(b) there shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be provided and maintained safe

.....19/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

means of access to every place at which any person is at any time required to work, and

(c) when any person has to work at a height from where he is likely to fall, provision shall be made, so far as is reasonably practicable, by fencing or otherwise, to ensure the safety of the person so working.

16. Insofar as the Factories Act is concerned, the

preamble of the Act states that it is an Act to consolidate

and amend the law regulating the labour in factories. It

is enacted primarily with object of protecting workers

employed in factories against industrial and occupational

hazards. For that purpose, it seeks to impose upon the

onus or occupiers certain obligations to protect workers

unwary as well as negligent and to secure for them

employment in conditions conductive to their health and

safety. This Act also requires that the workers should

.....20/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

work in healthy and sanitary conditions for that purpose

it provides that precaution should be taken for the safety

of the workers and prevention of accidents. A conjoint

reading of Section 2(k), 2(l), and 2(m) of the Factories

Act becomes clear that factory is that establishment

where manufacturing process is carried on with or

without the aid of power. Carrying on the same

manufacturing process and manufacturing activities is

thus a pre-requisite. It is equally pertinent to note that it

covers only those workers who are engaged in the said

manufacturing process.

17. Insofar as the deceased is concerned, who was

engaged through the contractors, falls within the

definition of "worker" under the Factories Act.

18. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State placed

reliance on the decision in the case of Lanco Anpara

.....21/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

Power Limited vs. State of UP and ors, reported in

(2016)10 SCC 329 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

considered the object of enactment and observed that

preamble of the Act mentions that enactment it was

enacted to consolidate and amend the law regulating

labours in factories. By referring the judgment in case of

Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and

anr, reported in (1964)1 SCR 860, the Hon'ble Apex

Court highlighted the necessity and rational being

legislating the Factories Act and the objectives, which is

sought to achieve in the following manner:

"The Factories Act, as the preamble recites, is an

Act to consolidate and amend the law

regulating labour in factories. The Act is

enacted primarily with the object of protecting

workers employed in factories against

.....22/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

industrial and occupational hazards. For that

purpose it seeks to impose upon the owners or

the occupiers certain obligations to protect

workers unwary as well as negligent and to

secure for them employment in conditions

conducive to their health and safety. The Act

requires that the workers should work in

healthy and sanitary conditions and for that

purpose it provides that precautions should be

taken for the safety of workers and prevention

of accidents. Incidental provisions are made

for securing information necessary to ensure

that the objects are carried out and the State

Governments are empowered to appoint

Inspectors, to call for reports and to inspect the

prescribed registers with a view to maintain

effective supervision. The duty of the employer

.....23/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

is to secure the health and safety of workers

and extends to providing adequate plant,

machinery and appliances, supervision over

workers, healthy and safe premises, proper

system of working and extends to giving

reasonable instructions. Detailed provisions

are therefore made in diverse chapters of the

Act imposing obligations upon the owners of

the factories to maintain inspecting staff and

for maintenance of health, cleanliness,

prevention of overcrowding and provision for

amenities such as lighting, drinking water, etc.

etc. Provisions are also made for safety of

workers and their welfare, such as restrictions

on working hours and on the employment of

young persons and females, and grant of

annual leave with wages. Employment in a

.....24/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

manufacturing process was at one time

regarded as a matter of contract between the

employer and the employee and the State was

not concerned to impose any duties upon the

employer. It is however now recognised that

the State has a vital concern in preventing

exploitation of labour and in insisting upon

proper safeguards for the health and safety of

the workers. The Factories Act undoubtedly

imposes numerous restrictions upon the

employers to secure to the workers adequate

safeguards for their health and physical well-

being. But imposition of such restrictions is not

and cannot be regarded, in the context of the

modem outlook on industrial relations, as

unreasonable...."

.....25/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

19. Thus, in view of the above said observations of

the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the

application, the object of the Act is to be kept in mind.

20. Though learned counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance on the decision in the case of

Sivagnanamoorthy and ors supra, the observations

made therein are on the basis of the evidence adduced

during the trial.

In the case of D.S.Chavan and ors supra,

wherein also the observation as to the negligent and

exonerating the occupier is on the basis of the evidence

and, therefore, both the judgments are not helpful to the

present petitioner as far as quashing of the proceeding is

concerned.

.....26/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

21. In the cases of D.Kumarswamy and ors and

S.Aswin Chandran and ors, facts therein are not identical

to the facts in the present case.

22. Perusal of the entire material reveals that there

were 4 water cooling towers having common cooling

water tank. The water tank contains water level upto a

height of 3 meters. Out of 4 Cooling Towers, Tower

Nos.1 and 2 are not working. Whereas, Tower Nos.3 and

4 are working. There is a pump house with RCC Slab

near Cooling Tower No.4. One temporary wooden plank

was used by laying between the top level of Cooling

Tower No.4 of the RCC Slab of the pump house. It was

used as a walkway to move from slab of pump house and

top of cooling Tower No.4 and vice versa. On the day of

the incident, the deceased used the said plank as he

approached to the said Cooling Tower to ascertain the

.....27/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

support which was given from the RCC Slab to the Tower

No.4. Admittedly, nothing is on record to show that

occupier has provided any provisions for approaching to

Tower No.4 from RCC Slab and, therefore, the workers

were using the walkway to move from the slab of a pump

house and top of Cooling Tower No.4 and vice versa.

Thus, it is contravention of Section 32 of the

Factories Act which is punishable under Section 92 of the

Factories Act.

23. The another ground raised by the petitioner is

that, before issuance of process, no enquiry was

conducted by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate before issuance of process.

24. It is submitted that as the petitioner is resident

of Uttarakhand, beyond the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, in view of Section 202 of the CrPC, it is

.....28/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

obligatory on the part of learned Magistrate to conduct

an enquiry before issuance of process.

25. This aspect is dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Expeditious Trial of Cases under

Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, suo motu W.P. (Cri)

No.2/2020, reported in (2021)16 SCC 116 wherein it is

observed that for conduct of the enquiry Section 202 of

the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the

complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit in

suitable cases. The Magistrate can restrict the enquiry to

examination of documents without insisting for

examination of witnesses.

26. Admittedly, in the present case, the order of

issuance of process is passed without assigning any

reasons. Even, the Magistrate is left with discretion to

dispense with the enquiry, he should assign reasons for

.....29/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

the same as to why he is restricting himself to the

examination of the documents.

27. This Court in the case of Shivshankar

Shrikrushna Dhole vs. State of Maharashtra, thr.AGP

Akola, reported in AIR OnLine 2021 Bom 2149 observed

that merely reading of the complaint and verification

statement on oath given by the complainant while issuing

process would not constitute sufficient compliance with

mandatory requirement of Section 202 of the Code,

particularly in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in constitution bench judgment.

28. It is well settled that if the Magistrate holds an

enquiry himself, it is not compulsory that he should

examine witnesses and in suitable cases the Magistrate

can examine documents to be satisfied that there are

sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 202 of

.....30/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

the CrPC. Although examination of all witnesses is not

required to comply the mandate under Section 202 of the

CrPC, the minimal requirement of tendering evidence

affidavit of the complainant, consideration of documents

and assignments of the requisite reasons for dispensing

with the detail enquiry is necessary. Merely reading of

the complaint and verification statement on oath would

not constitute sufficient compliance with mandatory

requirement of Section 202 of the CrPC, particularly in

the teeth of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India

in constitution bench judgment.

29. Keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, if the

impugned order is examined, apparently, it shows

requisite reasons for dispensing with the enquiry are not

mentioned. The satisfaction behind the issuance of order

.....31/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

is also not recorded. Resultantly, the order bereft of the

mandate of Section 202 of the Code.

30. In this view of the matter, the writ petition

deserves to be allowed by remanding the matter to

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.

Hence, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

(2) Summary Criminal Case No.3184/2024 is remanded

to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall

proceed from the stage of Section 202 of the Code.

(4) Learned Magistrate may conduct the enquiry under

Section 202 of the Code.

.....32/-

Judgment

473 wp30.25

(5) The evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the

complainant may be permitted to be taken on affidavit.

(6) Learned Magistrate may or restrict the enquiry to the

examination of the documents without insisting for

examination of the witnesses by assigning adequate

reasons for dispensing with the enquiry.

(7) The procedure under Section 202 of the Code shall be

conducted as expeditiously as possible and in any event

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of