AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Ray, J.—Heard Mr. Tripathy learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Counsel for the State.
In this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner prays for quashing the proceeding in 2(c) CC No. 18 of 2004 pending in the file of J.M.F.C. (R) Cuttack.
Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that actually opposite party No. 2 has applied for licence under the Factories Act. There are document to show that the application for licence under the Factories Act is still pending.
Learned Addl. Standing counsel for the State states that the prosecution against the Petitioner was launched because he was looking after the business of opposite party No. 2.
Therefore, the prosecution against the Petitioner was filed under a misconception that he is the occupier of the brick-kiln in question. Since the prosecution has been filed under a wrong notion, I have no hesitation to hold that continuance of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence I direct that the proceeding against the Petitioner is quashed. It is open to the Inspector of Factories to launch prosecution after making further enquiry, as he may deem fit and proper.
The CRLMC is disposed of.