Gujarat High Court
M.Prabhakar Rao S/O M.Venkata Ramaiah vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13067/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13067 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
M.PRABHAKAR RAO S/O M.VENKATA RAMAIAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PC KAVINA, SR. ACVOCATE WITH MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks following reliefs in para 7:-
"(A) Quash and set aside the Criminal Case No.74 of 2011 as against the petitioner pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Idar, District Sabarkantha and all the consequential proceedings and (B) Pending admission and final dipsoal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay Criminal Case No.74 of 2011 as against the petitioner pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Idar, District Sabarkantha and /or Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:25:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13067/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined (C) Award the cost of this petition (D) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. That on 14.09.2010, complainant has visited the branch of Company and had asked certain information from concerned officer of the company. However, the concerned officer of company failed to provide required information within the limit and thereby there was breach of section 20(2)(c) of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and conditions of service) Act, 1979. Accordingly, complaint came to be registered against the company and General Manager of company, wherein, present petitioner is also arrayed as one of the accused.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.P.C.Kavina with learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi for the respondent State.
4. Learned advocate Senior Mr.Kavina for the petitioner submitted that offence is registered under section 24(2) of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and condition of service) Act, 1979 (for short "the Act"). He would refer to facts of the case and submit that according to case of prosecution, Labour Officer registered complaint against Nuziveedu seeds Private Ltd. situated at Idar, Sabarkanta. It is submitted that on 14.09.2010 complainant has asked information of Inter state migrants workmen working in the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:25:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13067/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined private limited company but person in charge of said private limited company did not provide necessary details of the same and as such offence under section 20(2)(c) of the Act has been committed. Referring to section 20(2)(c) read with section24(2), learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina would submit that even if complaint is read in its entirety, it shows offence against General Manager of the company. Present petitioner is Director of the private limited company, who was never present on the spot when Labour Officer visited factory premises. He would further submit that looking to phraseology of section 20(2)(c) read with section 24(2) of the Act, it is person centric offence and therefore, present petitioner who is Director of Nuziveedu Seeds Private Limited cannot be vicariously liable for the offence. It is submitted that it is abuse of process of law and therefore, complaint may be quashed.
4.1. Upon above submission, it is submitted to allow the petition and granted relief as prayed for.
5. Learned APP Mr.Soham Joshi for the respondent State would submit that pursuant to visit made by Labour Officer, notice was issued to the Nuziveedu seeds Pvt. Limited on 14.09.2010. It is submitted that since notice was not complied by Directors of Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Labour Officer had not option except to file complaint. It is submitted that therefore, prima facie offence under section 20(2)(c) of Act appears to have been committed by Director and therefore, he is liable for punishment under section 24(2) of the Act.
5.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:25:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13067/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, let me refer to section 20(2)(c) of the Act, which reads as under :-
"(c) require any person giving out work to any workman to give any information which is in his power to give, with respect to the names and addresses of persons as to, for and from whom the work is given out or received, and with respect to the payments to be made for the work."
7. It is not in dispute that Labour Officer is authorized to enter into premises of Nuziveedu Seeds Private Ltd. and ask for details of inter state migrant workmen coming from other State. But what is material is to see who has committed the offence if such demand by Labour OFficer is not complied. At this stage, let me refer to section 24(2) of the Act, which reads as under :-
"(2) Whoever willfully refuses to produce on the demand of any inspector or authorized person any register or other document kept in pursuance of this Act or prevents or attempts to prevent or does anything which he has reason to believe is likely ot prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by any inspector or authorized person acting in pursuance of his duties under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both."
8. The above provision starts with word 'whoever willfully refuses", this indicates that offence is person centric. The present petitioner is admittedly Director of Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and living at Hyderabad. It is not the case of prosecution Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:25:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13067/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined that notice was issued to the petitioner in capacity of Director of Company for furnishing necessary details of migrate workmen. Bare reading of complaint indicates that on 14.09.2010, Labour Officer visited Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd., at village Idar and asked person in-charge to supply details about inter state migrant workmen.
9. Learned APP relief upon another notice though it is not part of proceedings to state that even Company was asked to supply details of inter state migrant workmen. However, learned APP failed to point out that notice was issued to the petitioner in personal capacity or in capacity of Director. Present petitioner being Director of company cannot be held liable. To fasten principle of vicarious liability of Director, necessary averments is necessary, to be made in complaint. (see National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v/s. Harmeet Singh Paintal (2010) 3 SCC 330]. In the present case, how petitioner has been arraigned as accused in the offence is missing out on reading of complaint in its entirety.
10. In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 736] a two-judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms:
"12. ... (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:25:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13067/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025 undefined complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/ malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) .."
11. In view of above, according to this Court allowing prosecution against present petitioner for the alleged breach of section 20(2)(c) of the Act punishable under section 24(2) of the Act would be abuse of process of law.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Criminal Case No.74 of 2011 registered with learned JMFC, Idar as well as consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof qua present petitioner who is original accused no.2 is quashed and set aside.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:25:11 IST 2025