Karnataka High Court
Mr Vigneshwar Gopal Krishna Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3064 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. MR VIGNESHWAR GOPAL KRISHNA BHAT
DIRECTOR
(ACTUALLY COMPANY SECRETARY)
2. MR. PRAVEEN
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
BOTH AT
M/S SOBHA LTD
DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA
MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD,
BELLANDUR POST
BANGALORE - 560 103.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT : K. KASTURI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT : K. SRIBHOOMI YESASWINI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE
INTER STATE MIGRANT WORKMEN
(REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND
CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT 1979
BEING THE ASSISTANT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER- DIVISION 3
2
KARMIKA BHAVANA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 029.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2018, TAKING COGNIZANCE
OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.03.2018 IN C.C.NO.11871/2018,
ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT,
BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-A. 2)QUASH THE COMPLAINT
DATED 08.03.2018 IN C.C.NO.11871/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 1ST TRAFFIC COURT,
BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE -B. 3) ALTERNATIVELY, EXCUSE THE
ACCUSED/PETITIONERS FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 1ST TRAFFIC COURT,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.11871/2018 (SUMMONS CASE) AND
PERMIT THE PLEADER TO CONDUCT THE CASE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners have sought to quash the order dated dated 23.03.2018 taking cognizance of the complaint dated 08.03.2018 and the consequent proceedings in C.C.No.11871/2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-1, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP.
3
3. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that various allegations in the complaint are directed only against the Company namely M/s.Sobha Limited. Petitioners are the Company Secretary and Executive Vice President of the said Company. There are no allegations whatsoever against the present petitioners constituting the alleged offences. The Company is not made a party to the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings initiated against them without arraigning the Company is not tenable in the eye of law. There are no allegations in the entire complaint that the petitioners have violated any of the provisions of the Interstate Migration of Labour (Employment Regulation and Service Conditions) Act, 1979 (for short "the Act"). Therefore, the proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of the complaint, it is noticed that the complaint was lodged by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Division-3, Bengaluru. Petitioner No.1 is described as the Director and petitioner No.2 as the Executive Vice President of M/s.Sobha Limited. The allegation made in the complaint is that M/s.Sobha Limited Company has undertaken construction work through its sub-contractors. There is a specific allegation that the original owner has undertaken the said construction work in violation of the 4 provisions of the Act. The details of the violation are narrated in the complaint, but the Company as such is not arrayed as an accused either in the complaint or in the FIR.
5. Considering the similar facts, this Court in Crl.P.No.2869/2018 and connected matters dated 07.06.2018, relying on the proposition of law laid down in ANEETA HADA vs. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS(P)LTD., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 has held that without making the Company primarily a party, other persons in charge of the said Company who are at the helm of affairs of the said Company cannot be fastened with criminal liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHARAD KUMAR SANGHI VS. SANGITA RANE in (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 781 has held that:
"Though the allegations are against the Company, the Company has not been made as a party and, therefore, the allegations are restricted to the Managing Director. The allegations are vague and in fact, the same are principally leveled against the Company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a Company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statues. When a complainant intends to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of a 5 Company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability for that, the Company has to be made as a party."
6. Apart from the above defect, it is also noticed that the complaint is filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner whereas under the Act, only Senior Labour Officer is authorized to institute the complaint in respect of the alleged violations of the provisions of the Act. For both these reasons, initiation of the proceedings in so far as the petitioners are concerned is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed. The complaint filed in CC No.11871/2018 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-1, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.
Liberty is given to the complainant to file a complaint afresh after curing the defects in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-