Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Eaton Power Quality Systems Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC:5230
                                                         CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021


                    HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                             BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

                                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7624 OF 2021

                   BETWEEN:
                   M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY
                   SYSTEMS LTD, HAVING ITS
                   OFFICE, NO. 2, EVR STREET,
                   SEDARAPET, VILLIANUR
                   COMMUNE, PUDUCHERRY-605111,
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
                   DIRECTOR, MR. SYED SAJJID ALI
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. MONIKAJULIET R., ADVOCATE FOR
                        SRI. R. PRABHAKARAN, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL
                        AIRPORT LTD POLICE STATION,
                        DEVANAHALLI, REPRESENTED
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH            BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
NV                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High          BENGALURU - 560 001.
Court of
Karnataka
                   2.   MRS. CLARA
                        W/O. MUNISWAMY,
                        AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                        RESIDING AT NO.147,
                        HOMBEGOWDA NAGAR,
                        HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
                        WILSON GARDEN,
                        BANGALORE CITY-560027
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1
                        R2 - SD/-)
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:5230
                                        CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021


HC-KAR



     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR IN CR.NO.98/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.304-A OF IPC FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.

     THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

                           ORAL ORDER

The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.98/2021 of Bengaluru International Airport Ltd Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, on the basis of first information lodged by respondent No.2.

2. Heard Smt. Monikajuliet, learned counsel for Sri.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Soumya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

-3-

NC: 2026:KHC:5230 CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021 HC-KAR

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

4. Respondent No.2 has filed the first information with International Airport Police Station, Bengaluru against L and T Construction Company as accused No.1 and the petitioner as accused No.2. It is stated that the petitioner is the sub- contractor under accused No.1 - L and T Construction Company, working in the International Airport Authority of India, Bengaluru. On 08.09.2021 when one Mr. Vinod, the brother of respondent No.2 was working as laboror under the petitioner in the construction site where the construction of the International Airport, Bengaluru was undertaken, he fell down during work sustaining injuries to his head and later died. -4-

NC: 2026:KHC:5230 CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021 HC-KAR Therefore, it is stated that accused have committed the offences under Section 304(A) of IPC.

5. The petitioner being accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Learned HCGP produced the copy of the registration certificate of the establishment issued in Form-C by the Department of Labor Government of Karnataka, according to which, Bengaluru International Airport Limited was registered and established under the provision of Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961') and therefore, it is stated that the Factories Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is stated that the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short 'BOCW Act') is applicable to the case in hand. My attention was drawn to Section 54 of the BOCW Act which reads as under:

"54. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint-
(a) made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, the Director-General or the Chief Inspector; or -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5230 CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021 HC-KAR
(b) made by an office-bearer of a voluntary organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860); or
(c) Made by an office-bearer of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable this Act. (2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act."

6. Therefore, there is a clear bar for taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the police complaint filed by respondent No.2. When the provisions of the 'BOCW Act' is made applicable, the procedure as contemplated under Section 54 of the 'BOCW Act' is to be followed. The complaint in writing as required under Section 200 of Cr.P.C is to be filed with the previous sanction in writing by the officers specified therein. Admittedly, no such procedure is followed before registration of the First Information Report. Therefore, solely on this ground the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

7. At this stage learned HCGP prays for reserving liberty with the competent authority to file complaint as required under Section 54 of the 'BOCW Act'. -6-

NC: 2026:KHC:5230 CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021 HC-KAR

8. In view of the discussion held above, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained and such initiation of proceedings is in abuse of process of law. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal case registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused No.2 seeking to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.98/2021 of Bengaluru International Airport Ltd Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is hereby quashed.
-7-

NC: 2026:KHC:5230 CRL.P No. 7624 of 2021 HC-KAR

iii) Liberty is reserved with the appropriate authority to file the complaint in accordance with law, if advised to do so.

Sd/-

(M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5