# Azim Premji v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2055
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 3261 of 2017
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/azim-premji-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52043
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

Complaint
proceedings-
Applicant
is
chairman and managing director of Wipro Ltd. -
has no interest in any shareholdings or
managerial control over the M/s G4S Secure
Solutions ( India) Pvt. Ltd. -no administrative
control over G4S -its an agency to provide
security services-task of security services is
outsourced to G4S -G4S is accused no.2allegation-during
inspection
by
Labour
Enforcement Officer certain alleged violation
of law were discovered-notices were allegedly
issued to Wipro company and G4S-no notice
was received ever by the establishment of the
company and the Applicant-imperative for the
learned CJM to examine the complaint to
ensure that the Directors or other senior
officers of the company who have been named
in the complaint are vicariously liable for the
act complained of- impugned order and
complaint
proceedings
are
mechanicalquashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,986 of 43,623. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39986 for what follows._

5 All. Azim Premji Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2055
concerned immediately for necessary
compliance and information.
---------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2055
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3261 of 2017

Azim Premji ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Karunanidhi Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Complaint
proceedings-
Applicant
is
chairman and managing director of Wipro Ltd. -
has no interest in any shareholdings or
managerial control over the M/s G4S Secure
Solutions ( India) Pvt. Ltd. -no administrative
control over G4S -its an agency to provide
security services-task of security services is
outsourced to G4S -G4S is accused no.2allegation-during
inspection
by
Labour
Enforcement Officer certain alleged violation
of law were discovered-notices were allegedly
issued to Wipro company and G4S-no notice
was received ever by the establishment of the
company and the Applicant-imperative for the
learned CJM to examine the complaint to
ensure that the Directors or other senior
officers of the company who have been named
in the complaint are vicariously liable for the
act complained of- impugned order and
complaint
proceedings
are
mechanicalquashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609
2. Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs St. of NCT of Delhi :
(2019) 17 SCC 193

3. Inder Mohan Goswami Vs St. of Uttaranchal
(2007)12 SCC 1

4. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383

5. Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Judicial Magistrate
reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749

6. Mehmood UL Rehman Vs Khazir Mohammad
Tunda & ors. reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420

7. Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs Yerraguntla
Shyamsundar reported in (2017) 7 SCC 760

8. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

9. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C. 866,

10. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

11. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)
283

12. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah., AIR 2021 SC 1918.

13. In S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Karunanidhi Yadav,
learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Shri
Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for
the State-opposite party No.1.

2. As per office report dated
20.03.2024, wherein it has been stated that
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has
sent a report dated 08.06.2017 stating
therein that notice upon opposite party No.2
was served but in spite of service of notice,
no counsel has put in appearance on behalf
2056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the opposite party No.2 and the case was
taken up for final hearing in the revised call.

3. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on
behalf of the applicant, namely-Azim
Premji seeking quashing of the complaint
proceedings pending before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Compliant
Case No.2886 of 2016; State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Azim Premji & Another, and
the summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and
the order dated 08.02.2017 vide which
bailable warrant has been issued against the
applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that the applicant is the
Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro
Ltd. (Company) and has no interest in any
shareholdings or managerial control over
the M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India)
Private Limited. Further, the applicant
being in the Board of Directors of Wipro
has nothing to do with the day-to-day
operations of the Wipro office at Lucknow.
The applicant has no administrative control
over G4S which is an agency which
provides security services.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that vide agreement dated
18.03.2015, the company entered into an
agreement with M/s G4S Secure Solutions
(India) Pvt. Ltd., the service provider, to
provide security services to the company. In
the said agreement, it has categorically been
provided under clause 2 that the service
provider i.e., M/s G4S Secure Solutions
(India) Pvt. Ltd. agrees to render all services
there under as a service provider and any
other person employed or engaged by the
service provider to perform the services will
act and will be considered for all purposes as
an independent contractor to Wipro and not
as an employee and agent of Wipro.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that the facts in brief are
that the present applicant is the Chairman and
Managing Director of Wipro Limited
(Company), a globally renowned Company
in
Information
and
Technology
and
Information Technology enabled Services
domain. Wipro Group of Companies (Wipro
Group) has varied other legal entities and has
also diversified into various other endeavors
such as Consumer Products, Lighting,
Infrastructure Engineering and other related
services.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submitted that Wipro Group is known
as a Model employer with multiple employee
oriented policies. Wipro Group employs
highly ethical practices and conducts its
business strictly on ethical and lawful
principles.

8. Learned Counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
for
providing security services at its various
facilities across India, the Company
engages the services of varied third party
security agencies. One of such security
agencies engaged by the Company known
as G4S Secure Solutions India Private
Limited (hereinafter referred as 'G4S') is
accused no.2 in the current Complaint. The
task of security services is outsourced to
G4S, which is an entirely separate legal entity.
It is merely an act of availing services from a
specialized
agency,
and
there
is
no
commonality of Freight on Road management
between the Company and G4S. The present
applicant has no concern with, and does not
have any interest in, or control over G4S,
which is a separate and distinct legal entity.
5 All. Azim Premji Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2057
9. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submitted that from the
perusal of the Complaint dated 26.08.2016
made by opposite party No.2, it appears that
during an inspection of G4S by Labour
Enforcement officer i.e. opposite party
No.2, on 02.06.2016, certain alleged
violations of law were discovered and
notices were allegedly issued to the Wipro
Company and G4S. It is the specific case of
the applicant that at no point of time, was
any notice was ever received by any
establishment of the Company, and least of
all, by the applicant herein. The applicant is
a
permanent
resident
of
Bengaluru,
Karnataka State, and hardly ever visits
Lucknow even in his official capacity.
Being
the
Chairman
and
Managing
Director of the Company, the applicant is
not involved at all in day to day functions
of the office of the Wipro Company
situated at Lucknow. No direct executive
function is exercised by the applicant for
the office of the Wipro Company at
Lucknow.

 He further submitted that as stated
above, no notice of any alleged violation was
received by any office of the Wipro Company.
The Wipro Company became aware of the
complaint only when a constable of U.P. Police
visited the Company's Lucknow office on
17.04.2017 and stated that he was carrying a
bailable warrant of arrest of Mr. Azim Premji
i.e. the applicant. It was this visit that prompted
the functionaries of the Wipro Company to
make immediate inquires from the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
and also from the Labour Enforcement Officer
and it was discovered that the alleged violation
does not in any manner relate to the Wipro
Company or the present applicant.

10. Learned counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
no
offence(s) as alleged in the complaint are
made out against either the Wipro
Company or against the applicant. It is also
the case of the applicant that the actual
employers in question i.e. G4S are not
under the supervision and management of
the applicant, and he has no control
whatsoever, over their affairs and activities.
It is also submitted that G4S, being the
actual employers in question, there is no
justification for issuing summons and
bailable warrant against the applicant.

11. Learned counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
no
vicarious liability for the alleged violations
in question vests upon the applicant. The
cryptic
prosecution
story
is
false,
fabricated, baseless and unfounded.

12. Learned counsel for the
applicant
further
submitted
that
the
allegations leveled against the applicant
does not inspire confidence and the
impugned complaint has been lodged with
an oblique motive for collateral purposes to
harass and pressurize the applicant and
further, learned court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow also failed to apply its
judicial mind while summoning the
applicant, as there was no sufficient
material to summon and issue bailable
warrant against the applicant for the alleged
offences.

13. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further
submitted
that
impugned
summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and
order dated 08.02.2017 issuing bailable
warrant against the applicant are not
sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same
have been passed in mechanical manner
without applying the judicial mind, because
on the face of record itself it is apparent that
impugned
summoning
order
dated
2058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
03.09.2016 and order dated 08.02.2017
issuing
bailable
warrant
against
the
applicant have been passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned without
assigning any reason, therefore the same
are liable to be quashed by this Court
alongwith the proceedings of the aforesaid
complaint case.

14. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite
party No.1 has opposed the argument
advanced by learned Counsel for the
applicant
and
submitted
that
the
summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and
bailable warrant dated 08.02.2017 are
rightly passed as prima facie offence is
made out against the applicant and the trial
court
has
rightly
passed
impugned
summoning order as well as the bailable
warrant after considering the material
placed on record, thus, the applicant is not
entitled for any relief by this Court and the
present application may be rejected.

15.

After
considering
the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the applicant and learned A.G.A-I for the
State-opposite party No.1 and after perusal
of the record, materials and arguments
presented, this Court finds that the
summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the
subsequent bailable warrant issued on
08.02.2017 against the applicant, lacks
necessary legal and factual foundation.
There appears force in the argument of
learned Counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has no administrative control over
the functioning of G4S, he could not have
been summoned for the alleged violation of
the
Equal
Remuneration
Act,
1976
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") under
which the complaint has been preferred by
opposite
party
No.2.
Moreover,
the
applicant was never been notified of the
said proceedings nor any notice was ever
served at any office of Wipro Company and
since the said outsourcing of services for
providing security at Wipro Office at
Lucknow has been given to G4S, the
applicant cannot be made accused in case
of any alleged violation of the provisions of
the Act in so far as security personnel are
concerned.

16. Further, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow has failed to ensure
the compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C.,
where it has been provided that if an
accused resides outside the jurisdiction of
the court concerned, an enquiry on fact is
mandatory before issuing a summoning
order. On this ground alone the proceedings
as also the summoning order dated
03.09.2016 as well as the order dated
08.02.2017 issuing bailable warrant against
the applicant appear to be against the settled
prepositions of law.

17. Further, while passing the
summoning order dated 03.09.2016; and
for that matter even registering of the
complaint case, no reason has been assigned
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
All what the summoning order dated
03.09.2016 states that the challan has been
received on 03.09.2016 and the case be
registered and the accused be summoned fixing
24.09.2016 as the next date for appearance of
the accused. The said order does not even
mention the content of challan and thus, it
reflects that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow has not applied its mind while
summoning the applicant to face trial and he has
failed to enquire even briefly the question as to
whether any culpability be imputed to the
applicant or other accused persons.

18. It is further observed here that
in the said agreement dated 18.03.2015
5 All. Azim Premji Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2059
under Clause 2 and 4, it has been
specifically provided that the service
provider is responsible for paying all
wages, salaries, provident funds, E.S.I.C. or
any other statutory benefits under the
applicable law and ordinary and necessary
expenses of its agents or employees
including, but not limited to, all applicable
taxes and employee State Insurance. The
relevant extracts of Clause 2 and Clause
4(h) are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

 "2. Personnel :

Service Provider agrees that in
rendering all services hereunder, Service
Provider and any person employed or
engaged by Service Provider to perform the
Services will act and be considered for all
purposes as an independent contractor to
Wipro, not as an employee or agent of
Wipro. In its capacity as an independent
contractor, Service Provider agrees and
represents the Service Provider:
 (i) Has the right to control and
direct
the
means
and
methods
of
performing the Services by itself and its
agents or employees, subject to the general
direction of Wipro;

(ii) Service Provider agrees not
to represent itself as Wipro's agent for any
purpose to any party unless specifically
unauthorized to do so, in advance and in
writing, and then for the limited purpose(s)
stated in such authorization.

(iii)
Service
Provider
shall
provide with a replacement personnel
within 30 days of Wipro raising request for
such replacement.
4 Representations & Warranties
Service Provider warrants and
represents to Wipro that;

h)
Service
Provider
is
responsible for paying all wages, salaries,
P.F., E.S.I.C. or any other statutory
benefits under the applicable law and
ordinary and necessary expenses of its
agents or employees including, but not
limited to, all applicable taxes and
employee State Insurance;"

19. Further, the complaint dated
26.08.2016 which has been instituted
before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow is in a cyclostyled printed format
which is bereft of any details and merely
states that the applicant alongwith other
accused i.e. Shri Sanjeev Pandey of M/s
G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. has
violated the provision of Section 8 of the
Act together with Rule 6 of the Rules
framed thereunder and that they were found
guilty and consequently they may be
prosecuted.

20. Further, on bare reading of
complaint dated 26.08.2016, it is apparent
that there was no objective material before
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lucknow to formulate an opinion for
issuance of summoning order or even to
register the complaint. It is thus, apparent
that the registration of the complaint, the
issuance of summoning order dated
03.09.2016 and the consequential issuance
of bailable warrant vide order dated
08.02.2017 had been done in a mechanical
manner sans application of mind whereas it
has repeatedly been held that prior to the
issuance of a summoning order it is
imperative for learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate to examine the complaint to
ensure that the Directors or other senior
officers of the company who have been
named in the complaint are vicariously
liable for the act complained of. It was also
imperative for learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow to ensure that there
was sufficient incrementing evidence
against the applicant coupled with criminal
intent or the statutory regime attracts the
2060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
doctrine of vicarious liability. In the instant
case, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow did not ascribe any incriminating
role against the applicant nor was any
statutory regime or vicarious liability
invoked. As per the settled law, learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow could
not have issued process to the applicant
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and as such the
entire complaint proceedings initiated
against the applicant as well as summoning
order dated 03.09.2016 and the order dated
08.02.2017 issuing bailable warrant against
the applicant are without jurisdiction.

21. Further, the question which
arises for consideration before this Court in
the present case is that whether the
applicant was liable for any offence even if
the allegations in the complaint are taken on
their face value to be correct in entirety. The
Company is a body incorporated under the
Companies Act. Vicarious criminal liability
of its Directors and Shareholders would arise
provided any provision exists in that behalf in
the statute. The Statute must contain
provision fixing such a vicarious liability.
Even for the said purpose, it would be
obligatory on the part of the complainant and
the investigating agency to make requisite
allegations and collect evidence in support
thereof which would attract provisions
constituting vicarious liability.

22. Futher, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court also in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 while dealing with
the issue of vicarious liability of the Officers,
Directors, Managing Directors, Chairman of
the Company was pleased to observe in
paras- 42 to 44 and 48 to 50 of the aforesaid
judgment, which read as under:-

 "42. No doubt, a corporate entity
is an artificial person which acts through
its officers, Directors, Managing Director,
Chairman, etc. If such a company commits
an offence involving mens rea, it would
normally be the intent and action of that
individual who would act on behalf of the
company. It would be more so, when the
criminal act is that of conspiracy. However,
at the same time, it is the cardinal principle
of criminal jurisprudence that there is no
vicarious liability unless the statute
specifically provides so.

43. Thus, an individual who has
perpetrated the commission of an offence
on behalf of a company can be made an
accused, along with the company, if there is
sufficient evidence of his active role
coupled with criminal intent. Second
situation in which he can be implicated is
in those cases where the statutory regime
itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious
liability, by specifically incorporating such
a provision.

44. When the company is the
offender, vicarious liability of the Directors
cannot be imputed automatically, in the
absence of any statutory provision to this
effect. One such example is Section 141 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In
Aneeta Hada [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather
Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661
: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Cri) 241] , the Court noted that if a group
of persons that guide the business of the
company have the criminal intent, that
would be imputed to the body corporate
and it is in this backdrop, Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act has to be
understood. Such a position is, therefore,
because of statutory intendment making it a
deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of
"alter ego", was applied only in one
direction, namely, where a group of
persons that guide the business had
criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the
body corporate and not the vice versa.
5 All. Azim Premji Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2061
Otherwise, there has to be a specific act
attributed to the Director or any other
person
allegedly
in
control
and
management of the company, to the effect
that such a person was responsible for the
acts committed by or on behalf of the
company."

48. Sine qua non for taking
cognizance of the offence is the application
of mind by the Magistrate and his
satisfaction that the allegations, if proved,
would constitute an offence. It is, therefore,
imperative that on a complaint or on a
police report, the Magistrate is bound to
consider the question as to whether the
same discloses commission of an offence
and is required to form such an opinion in
this respect. When he does so and decides
to issue process, he shall be said to have
taken cognizance. At the stage of taking
cognizance, the only consideration before
the court remains to consider judiciously
whether the material on which the
prosecution proposes to prosecute the
accused brings out a prima facie case or
not.

49. Cognizance of an offence and
prosecution of an offender are two different
things. Section 190 of the Code empowered
taking cognizance of an offence and not to
deal with offenders. Therefore, cognizance
can be taken even if offender is not known
or named when the complaint is filed or FIR
registered. Their names may transpire
during investigation or afterwards.

50. Person who has not joined as
accused in the charge-sheet can be
summoned
at
the
stage
of
taking
cognizance under Section 190 of the Code.
There is no question of applicability of
Section 319 of the Code at this stage (see
SWIL Ltd. v. State of Delhi [(2001) 6 SCC
670 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1205] ). It is also trite
that even if a person is not named as an
accused by the police in the final report
submitted, the court would be justified in
taking cognizance of the offence and to
summon the accused if it feels that the
evidence and material collected during
investigation justifies prosecution of the
accused (see Union of India v. Prakash P.
Hinduja [(2003) 6 SCC 195 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1314] ). Thus, the Magistrate is
empowered to issue process against some
other person, who has not been chargesheeted, but there has to be sufficient
material in the police report showing his
involvement. In that case, the Magistrate is
empowered to ignore the conclusion
arrived at by the investigating officer and
apply his mind independently on the facts
emerging from the investigation and take
cognizance of the case. At the same time, it
is not permissible at this stage to consider
any material other than that collected by
the investigating officer."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi : (2019) 17 SCC 193
while dealing with vicarious liability of
Managing Director of the Company was
pleased to observe in paras-21 and 22 as
under:-

"21. By applying the ratio laid
down by this Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal
[Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC
609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] it is clear
that an individual either as a Director or a
Managing Director or Chairman of the
company can be made an accused, along
with the company, only if there is sufficient
material to prove his active role coupled
with the criminal intent. Further the
criminal intent alleged must have direct
nexus with the accused. Further in Maksud
Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [Maksud Saiyed
v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] this Court has
2062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined
the
vicarious
liability
of
Directors for the charges levelled against
the Company. In the aforesaid judgment
this Court has held that, the Penal Code
does not contain any provision for
attaching vicarious liability on the part of
the Managing Director or the Directors of
the Company, when the accused is a
company. It is held that vicarious liability
of the Managing Director and Director
would arise provided any provision exists
in that behalf in the statute. It is further held
that statutes indisputably must provide
fixing such vicarious liability. It is also held
that, even for the said purpose, it is
obligatory on the part of the complainant to
make requisite allegations which would
attract the provisions constituting vicarious
liability.

22. In the judgment of this Court
in Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane
[Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane,
(2015) 12 SCC 781 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri)
159] while examining the allegations made
against the Managing Director of a
Company, in which, company was not made
a party, this Court has held that when the
allegations made against the Managing
Director are vague in nature, same can be
the ground for quashing the proceedings
under Section 482 CrPC. In the case on
hand principally the allegations are made
against the first accused company which
runs Hotel Hyatt Regency. At the same
time, the Managing Director of such
company who is Accused 2 is a party by
making vague allegations that he was
attending all the meetings of the company
and various decisions were being taken
under his signatures. Applying the ratio
laid down in the aforesaid cases, it is clear
that principally the allegations are made
only against the company and other staff
members who are incharge of day-to-day
affairs of the company. In the absence of
specific allegations against the Managing
Director of the company and having regard
to nature of allegations made which are
vague in nature, we are of the view that it is
a fit case for quashing the proceedings, so
far
as
the
Managing
Director
is
concerned."

24. Thus, an Officer, Director,
Managing Director or Chairman of the
Company can be made an accused along
with the Company only if there is sufficient
material to prove his active role coupled
with criminal intent. Indian Penal Code
does not contain any provision for vicarious
liability. For Managing Director or Director
to be accused and their implications in the
offence allegedly committed on behalf of
the company, when the accused is a
Company, the complaint/ FIR or Chargesheet must contain requisite allegations of
commission of the offence by such
individual(s).

25. It is further observed here
that the applicant, a distinguished
industrialist and the Chairman and
Managing Director of Wipro Ltd., has
consistently
demonstrated
a
commitment to ethical business practices
and social responsibility. Under his
leadership, Wipro has not only thrived as
a global leader in the IT industry but has
also been at the forefront of numerous
philanthropic
initiatives
aimed
at
improving education, healthcare, and
environmental sustainability in India
and beyond. In reflecting upon the
character and contributions of the
individual summoned before the court, it
is imperative to consider the specifics of
the case at hand and to also consider the
broader context of the individual's life
and work. This court recognizes the
multifaceted nature of the applicant,
5 All. Azim Premji Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2063
whose endeavors as both an industrialist
and a philanthropist, has left an
impeccable mark on society.

26. Further, the journey of an
industrialist
is
often
arduous,
demanding an intricate balance of vision,
risk-taking, and relentless pursuit of
innovation. The applicant, namely-Azim
permji has exemplified these qualities,
fostering economic growth and creating
employment opportunities that have
significantly
contributed
to
the
prosperity of the community. His
enterprise has not only driven industrial
advancement but has also catalyzed
ancillary development, uplifting the
standard of living of many.

27. It is equally noteworthy that
his commitment to philanthropy, a
testament to their deep-seated belief in
the interconnectedness of all individuals
within the society. His philanthropic
initiatives have spanned diverse fields
such as education, healthcare, and
environmental sustainability, reflecting
a
holistic
approach
to
social
responsibility. By investing in the
betterment of the less privileged, he has
demonstrated a profound understanding
of the ethical imperative to share the
fruits of success for the common good.

28. Philosophically, one might
invoke the concept of "karma yoga"
from the Bhagavad Gita, which espouses
selfless action as a path to spiritual
fulfillment. In applicant's life work, this
Court observe a parallel to this ideal-a
harmonious blend of personal success
and altruistic service. Such a balance is
not merely commendable but serves as
an inspiration, reminding us that true
greatness lies in the ability to transcend
personal ambition for the welfare of
others.

29. Futher, it is pertinent to note
here that the applicant has no direct
involvement in the day-to-day operations of
Wipro's office in Lucknow or any
managerial control over M/s G4S Secure
Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., the external
third-party
vendor
responsible
for
providing security services to Wipro. The
contractual agreement dated 18.03.2015
between Wipro and M/s G4S Secure
Solutions explicitly outlines that the
security
personnel
are
independent
contractors, not employees or agents of
Wipro. This agreement further clarifies that
the responsibility for complying with all
statutory
requirements,
including
the
payment of wages and other benefits, lies
solely with the service provider.

30. Given these facts, the
applicant's impeccable reputation as an
industrialist who upholds the highest
standard of corporate governance and his
extensive philanthropic contribution should
be taken into account. His involvement in
the case appears to stem from a
misunderstanding or misapplication of
legal principles rather than any malafide
intent
or
violation
of
the
Equal
Remuneration Act, 1976. The orders issued
against him lacks substantive ground, as the
applicant has no direct or indirect control
over the alleged matter and in light of the
applicant's
distinguished
career
and
substantial contributions to society, it is
evident that the proceedings against him are
unfounded and merit reconsideration. His
exemplary record as an industrialist and
philanthropist should serve as a testament
to his integrity and the improbability of his
involvement
in
any
legal
violations
concerning the employment practices of an
2064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
independent contractor, thus, the impugned
proceedings initiated against the applicant
is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

31. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case Inder Mohan Goswami v.
State of Uttaranchal (2007)12 SCC 1 has
held that it would be relevant to keep into
mind the scope and ambit of section 482
Cr.PC and circumstances under which the
extra ordinary power of the court inherent
therein as provisioned in the said section of
the Cr.P.C. can be exercised, para 23 is
being quoted here under:-

 "23. This court in a number of
cases has laid down the scope and ambit of
courts powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Every High Court has inherent power to act
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. Inherent power under
section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under
the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process
of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice."

32. Further, the Hon'ble the
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
Lalankumar Singh and Others vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 1383 has specifically held in
paragraph No.38 that the order of
issuance of process is not an empty
formality. The Magistrate is required to
apply his mind as to whether sufficient
ground for proceeding exists in the case
or not. Paragraph No.38 of Lalankumar
Singh and Others (supra) is being quoted
hereunder:-
 "38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this Court
in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central
Bureau of Investigation, which reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
5 All. Azim Premji Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2065
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.
The order is liable to be set aside if no
reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case
against the accused, though the order need
not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the
order would be bad in law if the reason
given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.""

33. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5
SCC 749 has been pleased to observe
paragraph No.28, which is reproduced
hereinunder:-

 "28. Summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he
has applied his mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. He has to
examine the nature of allegations made in
the complaint and the evidence both oral
and documentary in support thereof and
would that be sufficient for the complainant
to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a
silent spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of
the accused. The Magistrate has to
carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on
record and may even himself put questions
to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of
the allegations or otherwise and then
examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused."

34. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mehmood UL Rehman
v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others
reported in (2015) 12 SCC 420 has been
pleased to observe paragraph No.20, which
is reproduced hereinunder:-

 "20. The extensive reference to
the case law would clearly show that
cognizance of an offence on complaint is
taken for the purpose of issuing process to
the accused. Since it is a process of taking
judicial notice of certain facts which
constitute an offence, there has to be
application of mind as to whether the
allegations
in
the
complaint,
when
considered along with the statements
recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon,
would constitute violation of law so as to
call a person to appear before the criminal
court. It is not a mechanical process or
matter of course. As held by this Court in
Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the
process of criminal law against a person is
a serious matter."

35. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mahendra Singh
Dhoni
v.
Yerraguntla
Shyamsundar
reported in (2017) 7 SCC 760 has been
pleased to observe paragraph No.13, which
is read as under:-

13. Before parting with the case,
we would like to sound a word of caution
that the Magistrates who have been
conferred with the power of taking
cognizance and issuing summons are
required to carefully scrutinize whether the
allegations
made
in
the
complaint
2066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeding meet the basic ingredients of
the offence; whether the concept of
territorial jurisdiction is satisfied; and
further whether the accused is really
required to be summoned. This has to be
treated
as
the
primary
judicial
responsibility of the court issuing process.

36. Further, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has provided guidelines in case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 for the exercise
of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which
is extraordinary power and used separately
in following conditions:-

 "102.(1) Where the allegations
made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused."

(2) where the allegations in the
First
Information
Report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused;

(4) where the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code;
 (5) where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

37. Further the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also laid down the guidelines
where the criminal proceedings could be
interfered and quashed in exercise of its
power by the High Court in the following
cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1960 S.C.