2013 (5) TMI 974 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the documents annexed to the complaint u/s 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code constitute part of the complaint.
2. Whether the complaint filed by the respondents is vague and does not disclose the offence alleged against the petitioners.

Summary:

1. Documents Annexed to Complaint u/s 2(d) Cr.P.C.:
The primary issue was whether the documents annexed to the complaint u/s 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. constitute part of the complaint and can be looked into for making out the offence alleged. The court examined relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., including Sections 2(d), 173, 200, 207, and 238, and concluded that a complaint under section 2(d) Cr.P.C. must be complete in itself and cannot rely on annexed documents to disclose the offence. The court held that the documents appended to the complaint do not form part of the complaint and cannot be considered for making out the offence alleged.

2. Vagueness of Complaint:
The petitioners argued that the complaint was vague and lacked specific allegations necessary to disclose the offence. The court noted that the complaint did not specify what arrangements were missing in the factory or what information, instruction, training, or supervision was necessary. The complaint merely stated general allegations without particulars. The court referred to previous judgments, including Transport Corporation of India Limited & Ors. vs. R.M. Gandhi & Ors. and Keki Bomi Dadiseth & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized the requirement for complaints to contain specific factual allegations to constitute an offence. The court found substance in the petitioners' arguments and held that the complaint was vague and did not disclose the offence alleged.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the complaint filed by the respondent was vague and did not disclose the offence alleged against the petitioners. The court allowed the revision application and quashed the proceedings, stating that continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.