AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. A.K.Mishra, J
This is a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
In this case prayer is made to quash the 2(C) C.C. Case No. 1 of 2007 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.
Annexure-9, photo copy of the prosecution report reveals that as the present petitioner was responsible under Section 17(A) of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 for implementation of award passed in I.D. Case No. 478 of 1995 after publication of award by the Government in Labour & Employment
Department, Orissa, and despite granting of time on his prayer, compliance was not accomplished, the Prosecution Report for offences under Section
29 and 25-U of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed after obtaining sanction on 9.11.2006. The certified copy of the order sheet dated
19.11.2013 reveals that summons was issued to the present accused-petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint should have been filed against the Executive Engineer in office for which the present
accused-petitioner was not personally responsible and that State has filed one writ bearing W.P.(C) No. 207 of 2006 against Mr. Karunakar Nanda
and that writ is still pending without any stay order vide Annexure-12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
tendered Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand) by way of cheque for deposit in the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, he fervently submits that continuance of the proceeding in 2(C) C.C. No.1 of 2007 would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that he has no instruction with regard to stay.
I carefully perused the materials on record. As to the criminal liability, the material is to be looked into prima facie without any meticulous analysis
of the same. 8 In the decision reported in (2019) 10 Supreme Court Cases 337: XYZ vrs. State of Gujarat and Another, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has stated that the High Court should not make a roving inquiry while considering the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The offences under Sections 29 and 25-U of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 do not prescribe that it would only be initiated against the office not
against a person. The fact that the petitioner has tendered amount subsequently in the writ for compliance with the order of the Labour Court and that
no stay order has been granted in the writ, indicates that prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused-petitioner in 2(C) C.C. No. 1 of
2007.
In the decision reported in 2019 74 OCR (SC) 131 in the case of Sau Kamal Shivji Pokarnekar vrs. The State of Maharashtr, ait is held as
follows:-
“6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the
complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal
offence or not.â€
The F.I.R. having disclosed prima facie offence alleged, the principles enumerated in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604: State of Haryana
and Ors. vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, to quash the proceeding are not attracted.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in 2(C) C.C. No.1 of
2007 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Jajpur for an offence under Section 29 and 25-U of the I.D.Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.