[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Tamada Shanmukha Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:9784-DB
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
NAFR
2026.02.26
10:40:37
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 579 of 2026
Tamada Shanmukha Rao S/o Late T Appa Rao Aged About 54 Years R/o
C-Block, Plot No. 201, Gokuldham Apartment, Near Kotra Road, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Dhabra, District- Shakti,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Santosh Tiwari S/o Siya Ram Tiwari R/o Choki Faguram, P.S. Dhabra,
District- Shakti, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the State/respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following reliefs:-
"A. Quash FIR No. 0337/2025 dated 08.10.2025
registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti
for the alleged offences under Sections106(1),
289 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023against the Petitioner and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom;
B. Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition
has been preferred invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court for quashment of FIR No. 0337/2025 dated 08.10.2025
registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti, arising out of the
unfortunate industrial accident dated 07.10.2025 at M/s RKM
Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Village Uchhapinda, District Janjgir-Champa. It
is contended that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused
solely in his capacity as the "occupier" under the Factories Act, 1948
and that the allegations in the FIR are entirely derivative of his
official position, without any independent or personal act of
negligence being attributed to him.
4. Learned counsel submits that in respect of the very same incident,
the respondent-State has already initiated statutory proceedings
under Section 105 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948
alleging contravention of safety obligations. The factual foundation in
both proceedings--the statutory complaint under the Factories Act
and the impugned FIR invoking Sections 106(1), 289 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023--is identical, namely, alleged safety
lapses resulting in the elevator malfunction leading to fatalities and
injuries. It is argued that the FIR does not disclose any additional or
independent ingredient distinct from what is already the subject
matter of the special statutory prosecution. Thus, permitting both
proceedings to continue would amount to impermissible parallel
prosecution based on the same transaction, exposing the petitioner
to duplicative criminal process.
5. It is further submitted that the Factories Act is a special and self-
contained legislation governing industrial safety and prescribing
specific penal consequences under Section 92 for contravention
leading to death or serious injury. In such circumstances, invocation
of general penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for
the same alleged omission defeats the legislative intent underlying
the special statute. Placing reliance on settled principles of law,
learned counsel contends that where a special statute occupies the
field and provides a complete mechanism for prosecution, recourse
to the general penal law is unwarranted in absence of distinct
ingredients. Continuation of both proceedings would, therefore,
result in abuse of process and is liable to be interdicted by this Court
in exercise of its inherent powers.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the Passenger-cum-Goods
Elevator in question had been duly examined and certified by a
Competent Person recognised under Section 28 of the Factories Act
read with Rule 61(1) of the Chhattisgarh Factories Rules, 1962, and
the certificate was valid on the date of the incident. The statutory
inspection recorded the lift to be mechanically sound and compliant
with safety requirements. In the absence of any material indicating
structural defect or violation contrary to the statutory certification, the
essential ingredient of culpable negligence is conspicuously absent.
The impugned FIR, based on generalized allegations without
adverting to the valid safety certification, reflects non-application of
mind and amounts to criminalising an accident per se. On these
grounds, it is prayed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings
be quashed in the interest of justice.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel, placing reliance upon the
merg intimation and the FIR lodged by Santosh Tiwari, Sub-
Inspector and In-charge, Faguram Outpost, submits that the material
collected during the course of investigation clearly discloses the
commission of cognizable offences and establishes prima facie
gross negligence on the part of the persons in charge of the affairs
of the power plant. It is contended that on 07.10.2025 at about 8:30
PM, ten employees of RKM Power Plant, Uchchpinda, while
proceeding in the lift installed at Boiler No. 02 for maintenance work,
met with a catastrophic accident when the lift collapsed from a
height of approximately 44 meters. Four employees, namely Anjani
Kumar Kanejia, Ravindra Ravi, Mishri Lal and Bablu Prasad Gupta,
succumbed to their injuries during the course of treatment, while six
others sustained grievous injuries and were admitted to the ICU. The
magnitude of the incident, resulting in multiple fatalities and serious
injuries within the premises of an industrial establishment, itself
indicates serious lapses in adherence to safety standards.
8. Learned State counsel submits that during preliminary enquiry it has
emerged that the lift installed for boiler maintenance was not being
regularly inspected, maintained, and supervised as mandated under
the applicable safety norms. The responsibility for ensuring
operational safety rested upon the company owners Dr. Andal
Armugam and T.M. Singharvel, the plant management including
Manager Sammukh Rao, Boiler and Turbine Head Kamlesh
Agrawal, Safety Head Manoj Raut, Lift Engineer Krishna Gaurath,
P.E.D.M., Maintenance In-charge Wesley Mani and other
responsible officers. It is contended that the accident did not occur
due to a mere mechanical failure in isolation, but due to systemic
negligence, lack of proper oversight, and failure to enforce
mandatory safety protocols within the plant premises.
9. The State further submits that the gravity of the negligence is
evident from the fact that ten workers were permitted to use the lift
simultaneously for maintenance at a substantial height without
adequate safeguards. The investigation is ongoing to ascertain
whether safety devices were functional, whether load limits were
exceeded, whether statutory inspections were duly conducted, and
whether prior defects had been reported but ignored. At this stage,
the materials collected prima facie disclose offences relating to
causing death by negligence and causing grievous hurt by rash and
negligent acts under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
10. It is thus contended that the petition seeking quashment of the FIR is
premature and not maintainable at the threshold, as the allegations
disclose cognizable offences requiring thorough investigation.
Learned State counsel submits that the inherent jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution involving multiple deaths in an industrial accident of
serious magnitude. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be
dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents annexed with the present petition.
12. From perusal of the FIR, it transpires that on 07.10.2025 at about
8:30 PM, ten employees of RKM Power Plant, Uchchpinda, while
proceeding in a lift installed at Boiler No. 02 for maintenance work,
met with a grave accident when the lift allegedly collapsed from a
height of approximately 44 meters, resulting in the death of four
employees and causing grievous injuries to six others. The FIR
attributes the occurrence to the failure of the company management
and officers concerned to regularly maintain, supervise and ensure
the safe operation of the machinery and equipment installed at the
plant premises. Specific allegations have been levelled against the
persons responsible for the overall control and safety of the
establishment, asserting negligence and lack of due care in the
discharge of their duties.
13. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the veracity of the
allegations. The scope of jurisdiction in a petition under Section 482
CrPC / 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is limited to
examining whether the FIR, on its face, discloses the commission of
a cognizable offence or whether the criminal proceedings amount to
abuse of process of law. The allegations contained in the FIR, taken
at their face value and accepted in entirety for the limited purpose of
this petition, prima facie disclose commission of offences relating to
causing death and grievous injury by negligent acts in the course of
industrial operations.
14. The contention of the petitioner that proceedings under the Factories
Act have already been initiated and, therefore, the FIR deserves to
be quashed, cannot be accepted at this nascent stage. The question
as to whether the ingredients of the offences under the general
penal law are made out independently of the statutory
contraventions under the special enactment is a matter which
requires investigation and, if necessary, adjudication at trial. It
cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings invoking inherent
jurisdiction without a full-fledged enquiry into facts. Merely because
a statutory complaint under a special Act has been lodged does not
ipso facto bar criminal prosecution under the penal law when the
allegations disclose distinct and serious consequences in the form of
multiple fatalities.
15. It is also evident that the investigation is at a preliminary stage. The
authorities are required to collect material regarding maintenance
records, safety compliance, inspection certificates, load capacity,
supervisory mechanisms and the role of each officer in charge.
Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate
investigation into a serious industrial accident involving loss of
human lives.
16. Considering the gravity of the incident, the nature of the allegations,
and the settled parameters governing exercise of inherent powers,
this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for
quashment of the FIR at the threshold. The pleas raised by the
petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be
adjudicated in these proceedings and are open to be raised before
the competent forum at the appropriate stage.
17. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. It is, however,
clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of
deciding the present petition and shall not influence the investigation
or the trial in any manner.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
