[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Gajraj Singh Rathore vs State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
WP No. 109773 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
WRIT PETITION NO. 109773 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. GAJRAJ SINGH RATHORE,
DIRECTOR AT JSW STEELS LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
JSW CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI CITY,
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400051.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. LOMESH KIRAN N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SRI. VARUN R.,
Digitally signed SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES,
by BHARATHI
HM
Location: HIGH
BALLARI, NO.4(C) NEAR HOTEL POLA PARADISE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, PUPIL SCHOOL ROAD, CANTONMENT,
DHARWAD
BENCH
BALLARI, KARNATAKA-583104.
2. DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES, BOILERS,
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
KALYANA-SURAKSHA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
WP No. 109773 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528
OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO GRANT A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED APRIL 8,2025 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/COMPLAINANT IN PCR NO.7 OF 2025
(ANNEXURE-A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED APRIL 11, 2025 JUNE
21, 2025 AND AUGUST 30, 2025 ISSUED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BALLARI IN PCR NO.7/2025 (ANNEXURE-B) AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3; CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.7 OF 2025 ON THE FILE
OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BALLARI (ANNEXURE-B) AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL ORDER
Heard arguments of learned HCGP for respondent No.1
and reply arguments of Senior counsel, Sri Sandesh Chouta
for Sri Lomesh Kiran N. for the petitioner.
2. This is the writ petition filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
'BNSS 2023') praying for quashing the impugned complaint
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
dated 08.04.2025 filed by respondent No.1-complainant in
PCR No.7/2025 (Annexure-A) against the present
petitioner/accused No.3; quash the impugned order dated
11.04.2025, 21.06.2025 and 30.08.2025 issued by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ballari in PCR No.7/2025 (Annexure-B) against the
petitioner/accused No.3 and consequently quash the
impugned proceedings in PCR No.7/2025 on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ballari as against petitioner/accused No.3 and for such
other reliefs.
3. The case of petitioner is that petitioner is working
as Director at M/s. JSW Steel Limited having its registered
office at JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai City, Mumbai, Maharashtra since May 19, 2023.
The Company has set up an ore beneficiation plant for
processing of raw mined ore in order to remove impurities
and increase the concentration of valuable minerals. The
plant in question-'OBP-1 Project Plant' is situated at
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
Toranagallu Village, Sandur Taluk, Ballari District (for short,
'Project'). M/s. Real Technical Solutions Limited (RTSL) was
engaged as a contractor for supply of skilled manpower for
the Project, vide purchase order dated 11.05.2024. The
workers were employed and worked under the direction,
instructions, supervision and control of RTSL. It appears
that the worker fell and met an unfortunate demise since he
had climbed the elevation without wearing necessary PPE
and safety harness, which was completely unnecessary for
his assigned role as a fire watcher at the ground level. The
deceased worker was immediately shifted to M/s. Jindal
Sanjeevani Hospital, where he was declared as brought
dead. Respondent No.1 has filed impugned complaint on
08.04.2025 alleging the commission of offence in
contravention of Rule 199(a)(iii) and Rule 199(b) of the
Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998
(for short, 'BOCW Rules') punishable under Section 47 of
Building and other Construction Workers' (Regulation of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for
short, 'BOCW Act').
4. The Magistrate has issued summons to petitioner
on 11.04.2025, 21.06.2025 and 30.08.2025 without proper
application of mind and without noting that on the very face
of it there are absolutely no averments made against the
present petitioner. Having no other efficacious remedy, the
petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the impugned complaint does not reveal
absolutely any averment disclosing the specific role of the
petitioner in commission of the alleged offence.
Furthermore, the respondents have not made proper parties
as accused in the impugned complaint. The Company is not
impleaded as accused, but only the petitioner-Director of
the Company is arrayed as accused. The vicarious liability
cannot be fastened on the Directors of the Company without
specific averments about the specific role.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
6. In this regard, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner relied on the following citations and hence prayed
for allowing the petition:
1. S.C. Garg vs. State of U.P. - 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 791
2. Satyendra Nagwekar vs. State of Karnataka -
Crl.Petition No.100487/2023
3. Hucheshwar Traders Almatti vs. State of
Karnataka - Crl. Petition No.201077/2025
4. Basavaraj vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.
5. Shivaprakash Nima vs. State of Karnataka -
2024 SCC OnLine KAR 14650
6. Jitendra Virwani vs. State of Karnataka - 2013
SCC OnLine KAR 6547
7. M.S.Srinivasan vs. Deputy Director (BOCW),
Kanchipuram - 2019 1 LW (Crl) 396 (Madras
High Court)
8. S.N.Subrahmanyam vs. State - 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 12447
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
7. Learned HCGP has filed objections to the petition,
wherein it is contended that the complaint clearly discloses
the commission of cognizable and prosecutable offence
arising out of the accident that occurred at under
construction factory premises due to lack of safety
precautions taken. The responsibility of the petitioner being
the Director and person in control of the establishment in
ensuring compliance with the mandatory safety provisions
under construction factory's site and not followed them
attracts the penal provisions the BOCW Act. There is
statutory violation with regard to safety measures at
construction site. The impugned complaint is filed invoking
provisions of BOCW Act, which imposes statutory
obligations on the Director or Principal Employer and
persons having control and supervision over the
establishment, where construction activity is undertaken.
Hence, the BOCW Act and BOCW Rules have duty cast on
the employer and persons-in-charge of the establishment.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
8. It is also contended that the BOCW Act and Rules
cast duty on the employer/principal employer and persons
in charge of the establishment to ensure compliance with
safety and welfare requirements. The principal employer
cannot shift or evade statutory responsibility by merely
engaging a contractor through a purchase order or contract.
9. The averments are denied as incorrect and
unsustainable. The impugned complaint has been filed on
the basis of statutory violations under the BOCW Act and
Rules, which disclose a prima facie case. The petitioner has
been arrayed in his personal capacity as the Director of the
Company who is responsible for ensuring compliance with
the statutory safety obligations. The absence of the
Company as an accused does not automatically render the
proceedings unsustainable or abusive, especially where the
complaint discloses that the director was responsible for the
affairs of the Company in relation to the construction
activity and safety compliance.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
10. It is settled position that the question of
corporate criminal liability and vicarious liability of Directors
is a question of fact and evidence, to be examined at trial.
At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is not required to
determine whether the Director is liable or whether the
Company should also be arrayed. The Supreme Court in
Tata Motors Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and M/s.
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar has held that the Court should not quash proceedings
where a prima facie case is made out.
11. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the
complaint is malicious or that the proceedings are initiated
without jurisdiction. The mere fact that the Company is not
named as an accused does not render the complaint void. It
is open to the Company to be impleaded if necessary, but
the absence of such impleading cannot be a ground for
quashing the complaint against the director where prima
facie material exists and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
12. Learned HCGP further relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and
Others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR
1992 SC 604 and State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and
Others reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein it is held
that quashing is permissible only in exceptional cases,
where the complaint is wholly without substance, malafide
or an abuse of process of law. Mere apprehension of the
harm to reputation is not sufficient. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the present petition.
13. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the
only point that arises for consideration is:
1. Whether quashing of the private complaint
filed against the present petitioner is required?
14. Finding on the above point is in AFFIRMATIVE
for the following:
REASONS
15. Learned Senior counsel, Sri Sandesh Chouta
appearing for petitioner has submitted his arguments that
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
without making JSW Steel Company as accused, merely the
present petitioner cannot be made as accused in the case.
In this regard, he relies upon Section 53 of BOCW Act,
which reads as follows:
"53. Offences by companies.-
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a company, every person who, at the
time the offence was committed, was in charge of,
and was responsible to, the Company for the
conduct of the business of the company, as well as
the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall render any such person liable to any
punishment, if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where any offence under this Act has
been committed by a Company and it is proved that
the offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on
the part of any director, manager, secretary or
other officer of the company, such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed
to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
(a) "company" means any body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of individuals;
and
(b) " director", in relation to a firm, means a
partner in the firm."
(emphasis supplied)
16. The citations relied upon by the learned HCGP
are not at all pertaining to the case of present nature.
Hence, they are not relied upon.
17. In S.N.Subrahmanyam (supra), the High Court
of Delhi has held as under:
"53. In the considered view of this Court, the
words "for the conduct of the business of the
company" appearing in Section 53 are most crucial,
pregnant with meaning and provide the key to
determine whether a person connected to the
Company may be held accountable for the acts of
commission or omission constituting the offence
under Section 47 of the Building and Construction
Workers Act. After all, it is the status of being "in-
charge of" or being "responsible" for such business of
the Company that exposes the individual to vicarious
criminal liability. If the act of commission or omission
is attributable to the neglect of the person or on
account of his "connivance" or for that matter, with
his "consent", sub-section (2) of Section 53 directly
attracts the application of penal provision. For the
deeming clause contained in sub-section (1)
of Section 53 to kick in, there has to be a nexus
between the area of responsibility of the person
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
concerned, on one hand, and the act of commission
or omission leading to the contravention of the rules
under Section 40, on the other. To put it more
precisely, and clearly, in the context of the offence
under Section 47 of Building and Construction
Workers Act, the responsibility vis-à-vis the specific
rule framed under Section 40 (the breach of which is
alleged) has to be shown to be in existence for a
person connected with the business of the Company
presumed to be "in-charge" or "responsible". There
can be no thumb rule that every person "in- charge of
" or "responsible to" for the conduct of the business of
the Company in the general sense of the term would
be vicariously liable under the criminal law whether or
not he was expected to play any specific role or
discharge responsibility towards a specific rule, at the
stage when its breach has led to the fatality or
serious incident."
18. In Shivaprakash Nima (supra), the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has held as under:
"7. Undisputedly, the petitioner/accused No.1 in
the present case is the employee of M/s. Shree
Cement Limited and the accident in question had
taken place within the premises of the company. The
petitioner is being held vicariously liable for the act of
the company. Therefore, in view of Section 53 of the
Act, without arraying the Company as an accused to
the criminal proceedings, the petitioner/accused No.1,
who is an employee of the Company cannot be tried
for the alleged offence. The law in this regard has
been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours
Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661:
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241:
(2012) 172 Comp Cas 75, wherein, a similar
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
provision of law found in Negotiable Instruments Act
is interpreted."
19. In Jitendra Virwani (supra), the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has held as under:
"3. The point of law raised in this petition is, whether
the prosecution launched against the petitioner for the
aforesaid offence as Executive Director of the
Company, without the Company having been arraigned
as accused, is tenable.
7. Section 141 of the N.I. Act is in analogous to
Section 53 of the Act. Therefore, the principles of law
laid down in Aneeta Hada's case squarely applies to
the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the case on hand
the Company which is the principal offender has not
been prosecuted. The petitioner in the present case is
an Executive Director of the Company and he is being
prosecuted in that capacity.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The prosecution
launched against these petitioners in C.C.No.191/2013
on the file of the Metroplitan Magistrate Traffic Court -
I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed."
20. In Shivaprakash Nima, the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court relied upon the judgment in the case of
Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private
Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, wherein it is held
as under:
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
"20. Section 7 of the Act defines 'drawer' to mean the
maker of a bill of exchange or a cheque. An authorised
signatory of a Company becomes a drawer as he has
been authorised to do so in respect of the account
maintained by the company.
21. At this juncture, we may refer to Section
141 which deals with offences by companies. As the
spine of the controversy rests on the said provision, it
is reproduced below: -
"141. Offences by companies. - (1) If the
person committing an offence under section
138 is a company, every person who, at the
time the offence was committed, was in charge
of, and was responsible to the Company for the
conduct of the business of the company, as well
as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of
the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly;
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall render any person liable to
punishment if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge, or that he
had exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence:
Provided further that where a person is
nominated as a Director of a Company by virtue
of his holding any office or employment in the
Central Government or State Government or a
financial corporation owned or controlled by the
Central Government or the State Government,
as the case may be, he shall not be liable for
prosecution under this Chapter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), where any offence under this
Act, has been committed by a Company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed
with the consent or connivance of, or is
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any
director, manager, secretary or other officer of
the company, such director, manager, secretary
or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty
of that offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly."
22. On a reading of the said provision, it is
plain as day that if a person who commits
offence under Section 138 of the Act is a
company, the Company as well as every person
in charge of and responsible to the Company for
the conduct of business of the Company at the
time of commission of offence is deemed to be
guilty of the offence. The first proviso carves out
under what circumstances the criminal liability
would not be fastened. Sub-section (2) enlarges
the criminal liability by incorporating the
concepts of connivance, negligence and consent
that engulfs many categories of officers. It is
worth noting that in both the provisions, there is
a 'deemed' concept of criminal liability.
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we
arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for
maintaining the prosecution under Section
141 of the Act, arraigning of a Company as an
accused is imperative.
21. In Basavaraj (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court has held as under:
"9. On such perusal of the material on record
especially the order passed by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.201713/2021 and connected matters
disposed of on 09.02.2022, wherein this Court has
quashed the pending criminal proceedings solely on
the ground that Company is not arrayed as party and
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
therefore, there is no proper compliance of section
10 of the E.C.Act.
10. In the case on hand also practically similar
facts are involved. Accordingly, the ratio laid down
by this Court in Criminal Petition No.201713/2021
and connected matters would be applicable to the
cases on hand in toto."
22. In S.C. Garg (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as under:
"21. It is also to be seen that the business relation
was between the two companies. The cheques and the
demand drafts, as the case may be, were issued by
one Company to the other Company and no payment
was made by Tyagi to Garg individually. In Sharad
Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane13 this Court held thus
in paragraph 11 & 13:
"11. In the case at hand as the complainant's
initial statement would reflect, the allegations
are against the Company, the Company has not
been made a party and, therefore, the
allegations are restricted to the Managing
Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations
are vague and in fact, principally the allegations
are against the Company. There is no specific
allegation against the Managing Director. When
a Company has not been arrayed as a party, no
proceeding can be initiated against it even
where vicarious liability is fastened under
certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-
Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather
Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 in
the context of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
***
13. When the Company has not been arraigned
as an accused, such an order could not have
been passed. We have said so for the sake of
completeness. In the ultimate analysis, we are
of the considered opinion that the High Court
should have been well advised to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against the
appellant and that having not been done, the
order is sensitively vulnerable and accordingly
we set aside the same and quash the criminal
proceedings initiated by the respondent against
the appellant."
23. In the present case also, petitioner was arrayed
as accused No.3 alleging that he is the Director of JSW
Company, without arraying the Company as accused. If the
offence is committed by the Company, then the Company
shall be made as accused along with the Director. Only
Director cannot be made as accused in the case. Thus, as
per Section 53 of the BOCW Act, without arraying the
Company as an accused to the criminal proceedings, the
petitioner/accused No.3, who is Director of the Company
alone cannot be tried for the alleged offence. The ratio laid
down in the aforesaid matters is applicable to the present
case.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5012
HC-KAR
24. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the impugned proceedings against present petitioner
cannot be continued. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The petition is allowed.
2. The impugned complaint dated 08.04.2025 against
petitioner/accused No.3 is quashed. The impugned
orders dated 11.04.2025, 21.06.2025 and 30.08.2025
passed in PCR No.7/2025 pending before the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari
as against the petitioner/accused No.3 stand quashed.
3. Consequently, the impugned proceedings in PCR
No.7/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge
and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari as per Annexure-
B against the petitioner/accused No.3 is quashed.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH
CT-MCK,
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
