ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under section 482, Cr. P. C. by the petitioners for quashment of the order dated 2-2-2006 passed by the GJM Jamshedpur whereby and Whereunder the cognizance of the offence was taken under sections 287/288/338 of the IPC arising out of Golmuri (Burma Mines) P. S. Case No. 187/05 corresponding to G. R. No. 2112/05 presently pending in the Court of Shri D. C. Awasthi. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, jamshedpur. It is further prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners. The prosecution story in brief is that on 28-9-2005 while one Mukesh Singh (since deceased) was working in Golbana Engineering Department, under the supervision of contractor of Tube Company, namely Suresh Singh, Supervisor Nagina Sharma and the Engineer A. K. Singh and Ranjit Singh (Petitioners) the workman Mukesh Singh was asked to hand over a hammer to the supervisor, and pursuant to that, while he was moving towards the supervisor, he slipped in the open metal chamber and as a result of which he sustained serious burn Injuries and was immediately admitted to Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur where he succumbed while undergoing treatment and it is alleged that only on account of negligence on the part of the aforesaid persons including the petitioners the occurrence took place, The victim Mukesh Singh delivered his fardbeyan on the same day at about 18. 15 hours before his death.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel submitted that the information regarding the accident in which Mukesh Singh sustained severe burn Injuries was Immediately given to Inspector of Factories on 26-9-2005, and subsequently the Inspector of Factories filed a complaint for the offence punishable under section 92 of the factories Act in the Court of the CJM, Jamshedpur and as such cognizance of the offence was taken in C/2 case No. 5211/2005 (Annexure 11 ).

(3.) ADVANCING his argument learned Counsel submitted that for the same set of facts and occurrence there cannot be two criminal cases viz. police case on the Instance of Mukesh Singh (Informant deceased) as well as the complaint case on the instance of the Inspector of Factories under section 92 of the Factories Act. In that manner the petitioners have been harassed twice for single accident which is restricted under section 300 of the Code of criminal Procedure.