Karnataka High Court
Kolla Narendra Babu And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 6 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
CRL.P No. 201575 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201575 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. KOLLA NARENDRA BABU S/O. NAGESHWAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NO.3, KRISHNA MEADOWS,
NEAR ASKIHAL, OPP: HARSHITA GARDEN,
LINGASUGUR ROAD,
RAICHUR - 584101.
2. RAM MOHAN RAO, S/O LATE SATHYANARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. WARD NO.16, DEVI CAMP, KARATAGI-583 229,
GANGAVATHI, TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
Digitally signed by
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH 3. SMT. SATHYAVATHI, W/O SURENDER BABU,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:
COURT OF HOUSEWIFE/BUSINESS,
KARNATAKA R/O. NO.165, WARD NO.4,
NEAR SAI BABA MANDIR,
MARLANAHALLI-583229,
GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
4. SMT. LAVANYA W/O. SURESHBABU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE / BUSINESS,
R/O.19, HIREMATH BUILDING,
UDAYA NAGAR, SADHANAKERI,
DHARWAD-580008.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
CRL.P No. 201575 of 2024
5. SRI PUTTA VENKATASUBBA REDDY
S/O. GOVINDREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER,
R/O. 9-48, CHERUVUMUNDARAPALLI,
CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDALAM,
CHITTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517193.,
6. SRI KRISHNA @ VINDHYACHAL SAHINI
S/O SURENDRA SAHINI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI,
R/O. 193/6, MANSLAPUR ROAD
RAICHUR-584102
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K. RAVINDRA AND
SRI A.R. TARANATH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107,
(THROUGH RAICHUR RURAL POLICE STATION
RAICHUR 584101, RAICHUR DISTRICT)
2. RAKESH KUMAR SAHNI
S/O RAMSHAB SAHNI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O. BAPARUA, HUSENI, EAST CHAMPARAN,
BIHAR.
PRESENTLY R/O. MANSLAPUR,
RAICHUR 584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1
SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD) U/SEC
528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
CRL.P No. 201575 of 2024
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 11/2024 AND CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C NO. 3092/2022, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 287 AND 304 A OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF
3RD ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAICHUR. AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW
THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed
with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.3092/2022 pending before the Court of III Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur, arising out of Crime
No.11/2021 registered by Raichur Rural Circle, Police
Station, Raichur, for offences punishable under Sections
304 A and Section 287 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioners are being prosecuted simultaneously in two
proceedings for the alleged incident that had taken place
on 04.02.2021. He submits that private complaint is
already filed by the competent authority before the
Jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Factories
Act, 1948 against the petitioners and therefore the
impugned criminal proceedings initiated on the police
report cannot be continued. He submits that this Court in
the case of Ananthakumar vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 2019 3 AIR(Kar)(R) 485 and also in the
case of G.V. Prasad and another vs. The State
through Raichur Rural P.S. and another-2024:KHC-
K:7760 has already held that parallel prosecution cannot
be sustained. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent No.2
Private Complainant, who have opposed the petition does
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for
the petitioner.
5. The material on record would go to show that in
respect of the alleged accident that had taken place on
04.02.2021 in the premises of factory of which accused
No.1 was allegedly the occupier, the competent authority
has already filed a private complaint before the
Jurisdictional Court, which is pending consideration in
C.C.No.13118/2021, arising out of P.C.No.103/2021 filed
under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948.
6. The impugned criminal proceedings arise out of
the very same incident, which is the subject matter of the
private complaint initiated under the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948 and in view of the law laid down by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Ananthakumar (supra) and G.V. Prasad (supra) the
impugned criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. In
the case of Ananthakumar (supra), the question whether
the contravention of Section 29(1)(a)(ii) and Section
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
32(b) of Factories Act, 1948 of the Factories Act
punishable under Section 92 be clubbed with the offence
punishable under Section 304-A of IPC was considered
and while answering the said question in para No. 9, 10
and 14 of the said judgment, it has been observed as
follows.
"9. Referring to Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and
relevant decisions on the point, this Court took
note of the fact that Section 92 of the Factories
Act provides for punishment of imprisonment for
a period upto two years for contravention of any
provisions of this Act and if such contravention
has resulted in an accident causing death or
serious bodily injury, minimum fine of
Rs.25,000/- in addition to imprisonment. Likewise
Section 304-A prescribes that whoever causes the
death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both. Considering
these provisions in the light of Section 219 of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
Cr.P.C., it was held that the offences made
punishable under Section 92 of the Act and
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code are of the
same kind and are punishable with same
quantum of punishment and hence, Section 26 of
the General Clauses Act becomes applicable
requiring the offender to be prosecuted only
under one enactment and consequently, the
proceedings initiated against the accused therein
were quashed. The ratio laid down in the above
decision has been followed by this Court in the
case of M.ZAKIR AHMED (supra) and V. REVATHI
(supra).
10. I am in respectful agreement with the view
taken by this Court in the above decisions. Even
otherwise the scheme of the Factories Act does
not permit parallel prosecutions under two
different Acts against a person accused of
committing offences under the Factories Act.
Section 92 is the only section under the Act which
makes the contravention of the provisions of the
Act, punishable as criminal offence and prescribes
punishment and fine.
14. In view of the above factual and legal
position, the registration of FIR against the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
petitioners by respondent No.1 and consequent
investigation and submission of the charge sheet
paving way for the prosecution of the petitioners
for the alleged offence under Section 304-A of
Indian Penal Code as well as cognizance taken by
the learned Magistrate and the prosecution
initiated against the petitioners is held as illegal,
without jurisdiction and a clear case of abuse of
process of Court."
7. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that
the prosecution initiated against the petitioner for offence
punishable under Section 304A of IPC, while the
prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92
of the Factories Act, 1948 is already pending is not
permissible and accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
I. Criminal petition is allowed.
II. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.3092/2022 on
the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Raichur, arising out of Crime No.11/2021
NC: 2025:KHC-K:872
registered by Raichur Rural Circle, Police
Station, Raichur, for the punishable under
Section 287 and 304-A of IPC, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
AMM
