Karnataka High Court
Mr U K Farooq vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4548 OF 2022
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 8879 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P NO. 4548/2022
BETWEEN:
MR. U.K. FAROOQ,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE CHAYABBA
R/AT AZAD NAGARA
MASHIKATTE, ULLAL
MANGALORE - 575 020
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
by NANDINI B THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
G
Location: High BAJPE POLICE STATION
Court of MANGALORE-REPRESENTED BY
Karnataka
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. MR HASANUR MANDAL
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O KUDUS ALI MANDAL
RESIDING AT HADIPUR
CHUPRIJHAR VILLAGE
NORTH DISTRICT 24
PARAGANS DENGANG
P S WEST BENGAL-743424
PRESENTLY WORKING AT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
M/S SHREE ULKA LLP
MZEZ PERMUDE VILLAGE
MANGALURU TALUK
MANGALURU CITY
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1
V/O DT. 7/1/26, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR IN CRIME NO.52/2022 OF BAJPE POLICE STATION, MANGALORE,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 337, 338, 304
AND 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE JMFC VI COURT, MANGALORE
CITY DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER /
ACCUSED NO. 4 IS CONCERNED.
IN WP NO. 8879/2022
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREE ULKA LLP
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
MR RAJU GORAKH ROHAKALE
S/O MR GORAKH MARUTI ROHAKALE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT C/901/9, SAI RADIANCE
PLOT NO.59, 60, 61 SECTOR 15
CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI
KONKAN BHAVAN, THANE
MAHARASTHRA - 400 614
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BAJPE POLICE STATION, BAJPE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. HASANUR MANDAL
S/O KUDUS ALI MANDAL
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
HADIPUR, CHUPRIJHAR VILLAGE
NORTH DISTRICT, 24 PARAGANS
DENGANG P.S., WEST BENGAL-743424
PRESENTLY WORKING AT M/S SHREE ULKA LLP
COMPANY, MSEZ, PERMUDE VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALUR CITY
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1
R2-SD/-)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482, CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CR.NO.52/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC VI COURT
MANGALORE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 337, 338, 304 R/W 34 OF IPC BY R-1 AND FIR IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND
ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in WP.No.8879/2022 being accused No.1,
and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4548/2022 being accused No.4
are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
them in Crime No.52/2022 by Bajpe Police Station, registered
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), pending
on the file of the learned JMFC VI Court, Mangalore.
2. Heard Sri. P P Hedge, learned Senior counsel for
Sri. Ganapath Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.4548/2022, Sri. Sachin B S, learned counsel for the
petitioner in WP.No.8879/2022 and Smt. Sowmya R, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.
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 petitioners have made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. Accused No.1 is said to be the Managing Partner of
Limited Liability Partnership Firm by name Shree Ulka LLP and
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
accused No.4 is the Supervisor. It is stated that on 17.04.2022
at 18:10 hours, a mishap had occurred in fish processing
factory owned by the partnership firm, as result of which, three
workers died and five were sustained injuries. It is alleged that
the owner of the factory, Production Manager, Area Manager
and Supervisor have not taken any precautionary measures for
the safety of the workers, who were working in the dangerous
condition, which has resulted in the mishap.
5. Initially, the Authorized Officer i.e., the Deputy
Director of the factories filed the compliant as provided under
Section 105 of the Factories Act, with the jurisdictional
Magistrate alleging commission of the offences punishable
under Section 92 of the Factories Act, for contravention of
various provisions under the said Act. Learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence and summoned accused Nos.1 and 2
by name Raju Gorakh Rohakale and Robi Joseph. Those
accused have appeared before the learned Magistrate and
pleaded guilty. Accordingly, as per the order dated 17.09.2022
both the accused were convicted for contravention of Sections
7A(2)(d), 7A(2)(e), 69, 62(1), 51, 54, 7(4) punishable under
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
Section 92 of the Act, and they were sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months. It is stated that
accused Nos.1 and 2 have remitted fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each
on the very same day i.e., on 17.09.2022.
6. It is the contention of learned Senior advocate for
the petitioners that even the compensation as required to be
paid under the Factories Act is already paid to the victims or
their family members as the case may be.
7. In the mean time, it is stated that, one of the victim
lodged the Police Complaint alleging commission of the offences
under the provisions of IPC i.e., for the offence punishable
under Sections 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Accordingly, Bajpe Police registered the FIR on 17.04.2022
against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the investigation was
undertaken.
8. It is the contention of learned Senior advocate for
the petitioners that when Section 92 of the Factories Act is
invoked, which is an exhaustive enactment governing the
safety and protection of the workers in the factory and when
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
the accused have already convicted and sentenced, a parallel
proceedings under the provision of IPC would not lie. Learned
Senior advocate placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Ananthkumar V.s State Of Karnataka1 where the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court considered a similar mishap
occurred in the factory premises and formed an opinion that
the police could not have registered a case alleging commission
of offences punishable under Section 304A of IPC, when already
a complaint as per Section 105 of the Factories Act was filed.
Learned Senior advocate also placed reliance on the decision in
G V Prasad V.s The State Through Raichur Rural PS2
where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court placing reliance on
Ananthkumar (supra), formed an opinion that in view of the
prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act, parallel
prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 304A of
IPC is not permissible. Learned Senior advocate also drawn
attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and Another V.S State Of
Maharastra3, where mishap had occurred in the factory
1
AIR Online 2019 KAR 565
2
Crl.P.No.200662/2024 DD 22.10.2024
3
2025 SCC Online SC 520
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
premises and it is alleged that accused persons have not taken
proper care and precaution for the safety of the laborers by
providing safety sheets, safety belt etc,. The Court has
considered at length as to whether the offence under Section
304A or 304 part II of IPC could be invoked and held that no
prima facie case can be said to be made out against the
appellants therein for committing offence under Section 304-A
of IPC as the deaths caused where purely accidental and
moreover Section 304 part II IPC shall any way not apply as
there was no knowledge on the part of the accused that the act
committed will cause death of the employees.
9. In view of these consistent pronouncements, Under
such circumstances, I am of the opinion that there are no prima
facie materials to proceed against the accused for committing
the offences under Section 304A or 304 part II of IPC, as the
offence alleged under the provisions of IPC and the Factories
Act are conspicuously same, even if the allegations made in the
FIR is to be taken into consideration as it is. In view of the
various decisions referred to above, the position of law is very
well settled. Under such circumstances, the allegations made in
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:1917
CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022
C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022
HC-KAR
the first information regarding mishap that had resulted in
three death and injuries to other five cannot attract either
Sections 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC.
10. In view of the admitted facts and circumstances, I
am of the opinion that none of the penal provisions under IPC
could be invoked, when Section 92 of the Factories Act provides
for general penalty for the offence punishable under the special
enactment, which will prevail over the general provision under
IPC.
11. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that
initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be
an abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by
prosecuting them. Hence, I am of the opinion that criminal case
registered against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petitions are allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1917 CRL.P No. 4548 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8879 of 2022 HC-KAR
ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner being accused No.1 in WP.No.8879/2022, and the petitioner being accused No.4 in Crl.P.No.4548/2022 in crime No.52/2022 by Bajpe Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 337, 338, 304 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the learned JMFC VI Court, Mangalore, is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory application in WP.No.8879/2022 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed off.
SD/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5