# U.O.I v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 3
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2759 of 2013
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-o-i-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52148
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 21 - Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 -
Sections 7, 24, 28(1) - Contract
Labour
(Regulation
&
Abolition)
Central Rules, 1971 - Rule 74, 81(3) -
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 200 - On 20.9.2011 no
construction work and inspection was
carried out in alleged premises - Field
General Manager's office and Regional
Office was functional with about 1000
employees of Bank - Applicant has only
second floor of Sharda Towers with
the 1st and other floors are occupied
by Sahara India Group - Applicant had
got constructed a building of its own in
which
wooden
interiors,
electrical
interiors and furnishing work was
completed within 17 days of alleged
inspection and Field General Manager's
office was shifted in a well- furnished
premises - Magistrate has not applied
its judicial mind and passed a oneword order 'Register' - No order for
taking cognizance and issuance of
summons
has
been
passed
-
Allegation of offences has no legal
basis since it is not contract of service,
but contract for service - Necessary
registers and forms were sent to
Complainant but he failed to consider
them - Applicant cannot be termed as
'Principal Employer' as it was not
directly responsible for supervision
and control - Banking company is not
establishment, which is required to be
registered u/s 7 of the Act - Criminal
Complaint has been filed against Chief
Manager not by his designation, but in
his individual capacity, without making
the Bank as an accused. (Para 2, 15)

Criminal Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. U.O.I. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
3
(2024) 6 ILRA 3
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2759 of 2013

U.O.I. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Chandra Shekhar Sinha, Ajay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sandeep Sharma

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 21 - Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 -
Sections 7, 24, 28(1) - Contract
Labour
(Regulation
&
Abolition)
Central Rules, 1971 - Rule 74, 81(3) -
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 200 - On 20.9.2011 no
construction work and inspection was
carried out in alleged premises - Field
General Manager's office and Regional
Office was functional with about 1000
employees of Bank - Applicant has only
second floor of Sharda Towers with
the 1st and other floors are occupied
by Sahara India Group - Applicant had
got constructed a building of its own in
which
wooden
interiors,
electrical
interiors and furnishing work was
completed within 17 days of alleged
inspection and Field General Manager's
office was shifted in a well- furnished
premises - Magistrate has not applied
its judicial mind and passed a oneword order 'Register' - No order for
taking cognizance and issuance of
summons
has
been
passed
-
Allegation of offences has no legal
basis since it is not contract of service,
but contract for service - Necessary
registers and forms were sent to
Complainant but he failed to consider
them - Applicant cannot be termed as
'Principal Employer' as it was not
directly responsible for supervision
and control - Banking company is not
establishment, which is required to be
registered u/s 7 of the Act - Criminal
Complaint has been filed against Chief
Manager not by his designation, but in
his individual capacity, without making
the Bank as an accused. (Para 2, 15)

Criminal Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

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

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

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

6. State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

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

8. State of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192

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

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

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri S.B. Pandey, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Varun
Pandey, Advocate and Sri Chandra Shekhar
Sinha, Advocate, for the applicant/Union of
India as well as Sri Sandeep Sharma,
Advocate for the opp. party No. 2 and the
learned A.G.A. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
for the State, and also perused the record.

2. The applicant herein, Union Bank
of India, has filed this application under
Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the prayer to
quash the impugned Criminal Complaint
Case No. 18 of 2012 under Section 24 of
the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act 1970, P.S. Gomti Nagar,
District Lucknow, pending in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, filed
by
the
Labour
Enforcement
Officer
(Central), Lucknow, and all consequential
orders arising thereon.

3. In short, the facts of the case are
that the complainant/Labour Enforcement
Officer (Central), Lucknow, has filed the
impugned complaint with the allegations
that the complainant is the Public Servant
within the definition of section 21 of 1.P.C.
and the complaint is being filed by the
complainant in discharge of his official
duties
and
such
recording
of
presummoning evidence be dispensed in terms
of section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The
complainant is Labour Enforcement Officer
(Central),
Lucknow,
who
has
been
appointed as an Inspector under section
28(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act, 1970 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The
Union Bank of India (in short, referred to
as 'the Bank') is Principal Employer, as
defined
under
the
Contract
Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and
was
executing
the
contract
work
"Maintenance & Security of Union Bank of
India Premises at Lucknow and responsible
for the compliance of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Central Rules, 1971. The establishment of the
Bank was inspected by Labour Enforcement
Officer (Central), Lucknow/opp. Party No. 2
on 20.09.2011 under the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)
Central Rules, 1971 when the work was in
progress with 50 contract labours through one
contractors. The establishment is, therefore,
covered under the said Act. During the course
of inspection of aforesaid establishment of
the Bank on 20.09.2011, the Labour
Enforcement Officer (Central), Lucknow
observed following breaches:-

"a. Register of Contractors is not
maintained in form XII vide Rule 74.

b. Return in Form VI-B not
submitted to the Inspector in respect of all
contractors - Breach of Rule 81(3).

c. Notices showing the rate of
wages, hours of work, wage period, date of
payment of unpaid wages has not been
displayed in English and in Hindi & in the
local language understood by the majority
of the workers in conspicuous place at the
establishment - Breach of Rule 81(1)(i)."

4. The above mentioned breaches of
the said Act/Rules as observed by the opp.
Party No. 2 were incorporated in the
Inspection report cum show cause notice
No.
LKO.35(25)/2011
dated
20.09.11
which was prepared on workspot within the
jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court under section
24 of the said Act and hence the complaint
was filed seeking the following prayer:

"The
complainant
therefore,
prays that the Hon'ble Court may be
6 All. U.O.I. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
5
pleased to take the case on file and dispose
off the complaint according to law. The
complainant further prays to add subtract,
amend or altar the complaint, if necessary
with the prior permission of the Hon'ble
Court.

The complainant also prays the
Hon'ble Court to award a part of the fine
imposed on the accused towards the
expenses incurred by the department in
conducting the prosecution in terms of
section 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. 1973 and the
amount awarded may be ordered to be
credited to the Central Head of Account
No. 087 Labour and Employment-Pay and
Account Officer (CLC), New Delhi."

5. It has been argued on behalf of
the Bank that from perusal of the
inspection-report it is evident that the
inspection
was
carried
out
at
Kapoorthala, whereas no work was being
carried out at Kapoorthala and the entire
allegations in the criminal complaint are
absolutely wrong and fabricated. In fact,
the building of Union Bank of India has
been constructed at Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, completing all
the legal requirements, few months
before the show-cause notice reached the
bank. When the show cause notice dated
20.9.2011 was received by the Bank, then
the officers of the applicant overlooking
the place of inspection in the show-cause
notice, gave a reply dated 12.10.2011 and
annexed the relevant papers which are in
compliance with the provisions of the
'Act', i.e., Register of Contractors in
Form XII as per Rule 74, Form VI-B as
per Rule 81(3) of the Contract Labour
(R&A) Central Rules 1971. It has been
further
submitted
that
in
fact
on
20.9.2011 no work was in progress even
at
Vibhuti
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar,
Lucknow, where all the construction
work had completed and the furnishing
and interior work was also at the verge of
completion.

6. Clarifying the position, it has also
been submitted that in fact the Union
Bank of India Field G.M. Office was
situated at 2nd Floor, Sharda Tower,
Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow, for the
last more than 20 years. The office was
situated at the 2nd Floor of Sharda Tower
and the 1st floor and other floors above
2nd
floor
were
occupied
and
in
possession
of
Sahara
India.
No
construction work could be carried out
nor it was being carried out in the
premises of the applicant at 2nd Floor at
Sharda Tower, Kapoorthala, Lucknow, as
alleged in the inspection report. After
completion of the interiors the Field G.M.
Office of the Union Bank of India has
shifted from Kapoorthala Complex to
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
in October 2011. The applicant Union
Bank of India informed the General
Managaer, Reserve Bank of India vide
letter dated 7.10.2011 that the Field
General Manager's office has been shifted
to
Vibhuti
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar,
Lucknow on 29.9.2011.

7. The applicant-Bank has also invited
the court's attention towards the letter dated
7.10.2011 sent by the Dy. General Manager
Union Bank of India to the General
Manager Reserve Bank of India informing
the shifting of office, which has been
annexed to the application. The learned
counsel has also drawn attention of the
court towards theletter dated 22.1.2012
(Annexure No. 5 to the application) vide
which the Deputy General Manager,
Banking Supervision Department, Reserve
Bank of India, has been intimated about
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shifting of the Regional Office of the Union
Bank of India which was also situated at
Kapoorthala, Lucknow, also to the new
building at Vibhuti Khand on 16.1.2012.

8. The learned counsel for the
applicant has emphasized that both the
Field General Manager's office and the
Regional Office, which were in operation at
Kapoorthala situated on the 2nd floor and
the Field General Manager's office had
been shifted to the well furnished office at
Vibhuti Khand on 7.10.2011, i.e., within 17
days from the date of inspection, in which
period it is not possible to complete the
construction and the furnishing of the
building. Further it is not possible to start
any construction work only at the floor in
possession of the applicant which was
functional with about 1000 workers of the
Bank.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits
that
Section
24
of
"The
ContractLabour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"If any person contravenes any
of the provisions of this Act or of any
Rules laid thereunder for which no other
penalty is elsewhere provided, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to three months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees or
with both."

10. It has next been argued on behalf
of the applicant-Bank that the allegation of
offences alleged to be committed by the
applicant has no legal basis since the
wooden interior/electrical interior work
being run by service providers is not a
"Contract of Service", but "Contract for
Service:
and
as
such
the
Act
is
inapplicable. Since the wooden/electrical
interior being done by a service provider is
under 'contract for service' over which the
Union Bank has no supervisory powers or
controls. The Bank does not come within
the ambit of the Act.

11. Moreover, the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 is an
Act to regulate the employment of contract
labour in certain establishments and to
provide for the abolition of contract labour.
The Act was passed to prevent the
exploitation of the contract labour and to
introduce better conditions of work. It
provides for regulation of the service
conditions of contract labour. The Act
intends to abolish the contract labour
wherever practicable and where it cannot
be abolished altogether. The policy of the
Act is that the working condition of the
labour should be regulated so as to ensure
payment of wages and provision of
essential
amenities.
To
attract
the
provisions of the Act the establishment
must be employing contract labours and the
principal employer means the person
responsible for the supervision and control
of the establishment. The establishment
which is required to register and maintain
the register is the person, who actually
employs the contract labourers. Therefore,
the
applicant
cannot
be
termed
as
?principal employer? as he was not directly
responsible for the supervision and control
and the banking company is not the
establishment which is required to register
under Section 7 of the Act as it has issued a
work order for interior decoration and
electrical work with two independent
contractors who have engaged skilled
workmen and the same cannot be construed
as engagement of contract labour by the
bank for any routine banking activity.
Proceedings
of
the
aforementioned
impugned
criminal
complaint,
the
6 All. U.O.I. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
7
summoning order and all consequential
orders are liable to be quashed/set aside.
Proceeding of the criminal complaint,
which is wrong and fabricated, is an abuse
of process of law, due to which the
applicant as the officer of the Bank will
suffer irreparable loss, as he will have to
appear in the Court of Magistrate, where he
will be taken into custody and subjected to
bail for no offence committed by the Bank.

12. It has also been argued by the
learned Sr. Advocate Sri S.B. Pandey and
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate, that
the learned Magistrate, while entertaining
the criminal complaint, has not applied its
judicial mind and has simply passed an
order to register the case on 3.11.2012. To
the best of knowledge of the applicant no
other order has been passed by the
Magistrate to summon the applicant, but
even then summons have been issued and
no order for taking cognizance has been
passed by the learned Magistrate. The order
dated 3.11.2012 on the complaint only says
"Register" which is apparently without the
application of judicial mind of the learned
Magistrate, more so it does not even say
?isuue summons? and to the best of
knowledge of the deponent/applicant there
is no other order on the case file. Certified
copy of the criminal complaint with the
order ?register? has been filed as Annexure
No. 1 to the application. In fact the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the
instant case and has no criminal history and
is not a previous convict.

13. It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the Union of India that
the opp. party no. 2 has filed the impugned
complaint
under
Contract
Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and
Contract
Labour
(Regulation
and
Abolition) Central Rules 1971 against the
applicant-bank after making the inspection
and after finding several discrepancies in
maintaining the records as required under
the Act in their capacity as principal
employer of the workers. It is further
submitted that the instant application is not
maintainable in view of the fact that the
Union of India has not been impleaded as
opposite party in the case, which is also
mandatory, since the Acts under which the
complaint is based is Central Act, and,
therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed
on this very ground. It is also submitted
that the applicant has filed the above case
with the intention to avoid appearing before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
where he can put his entire grievance/case,
and for this reason also the case is liable to
be dismissed. It is further submitted that the
complaint,
under
Contract
Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and
Contract
Labour
(Regulation
and
Abolition) Central Rules 1971, after
making inspection at the Kapoorthala office
i.e. the Office of Principal Employer of the
applicant-bank, prepared an inspection note
based on the information provided by the
representative of the Principal Employer
and signed the same and got the same
received by the Representative of the
Principal Employer i.e. Senior Manager of
the Regional Office of the petitioner. It is
further
submitted
that
the
records
mentioned in the paragraph-7 of the
application were not made available on
demand. It is also submitted that in
Annexure-3 to the application, the address
of the petitioner is shown (on the stamp)
'Sahara Tower, Second Floor, Kapoorthala
Complex, Lucknow', which falsify the
stand of the applicant that office has shifted
to Gomti Nagar. The applicant was duty
bound to intimate the Labour Enforcement
Officer within 15 days from the date of
commencement or completion of each
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contract work in terms of the provision of
Section 81 (3) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Central Act,
1970, which was not complied with by the
applicant. The bank is having every
supervisory control.

14. On behalf of the opp. party no. 2 it
has been urged that since the provisions of
the Act, referred to above, have been
violated by the applicant, the complaint
was preferred by the opp. party no. 2 before
the learned Magistrate, in which no
interference, at this stage, is necessary, as
only the summon has been issued to the
applicant and further proceedings are yet to
be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the parties. The applicant will
have ample opportunity to put up his case
before the learned Magistrate. Since the
applicant has opportunity available to put
up his case, the present application is liable
to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate,
after going through the records and
applying his judicial mind, has passed the
order in the matter and, as such, the
application is liable to be dismissed with
cost.

15.

Considering
the
arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perusing the records this court
finds favour with the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the applicant that on
20.9.2011 no construction work was going on
at Sharda Towers, Kapoorthala, Aliganj,
Lucknow and no inspection was carried out
in the premises, as alleged; on 20.9.2011 the
Field General Manager's office and the
Regional Office was functional with about
1000 employees of the Bank working, as
such no construction could have been carried
out. Rather, the applicant Union Bank of
India has only the second floor of the Sharda
Towers with the 1st and other floors above
the office of the petitioner are occupied by
Sahara India Group, as such also, no
construction could have been made; the
applicant Union Bank of India had got
constructed a building of its own at Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in which on
20.9.2011 the wooden interiors, the electrical
interiors and furnishing work was on the
verge of completion and was completed
within 17 days of the alleged inspection and
the Field General Manager's office was
shifted in a well- furnished and wellequipped premises; the learned Magistrate,
while entertaining the criminal complaint, has
not applied its judicial mind and has simply
passed a one-word order 'Register' on
3.11.2012; no order for taking cognizance
and issuance of summons has been passed by
the learned Magistrate to the best of
knowledge of the applicant; the allegation of
offences, alleged to be committed by the
petitioner, has no legal basis since the
wooden/electrical interior work being run by
service providers is not a contract of service,
but contract for service, and as such the Act is
inapplicable in the present case; in reply to
the show cause notice the necessary registers
and forms were sent to the Labour
Enforcement Officer (Central), although the
same related to premises at Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, but the Labour
Enforcement Officer failed to consider them
and filed the impugned complaint; the
applicant cannot be termed as 'Principal
Employer' as the bank was not directly
responsible for the supervision and control
and the banking company is not the
establishment, which is required to be
registered under Section 7 of the Act, and, the
criminal complaint has been filed against the
Chief Manager of the Union Bank of India
not by his designation, but in his individual
capacity, without making the Bank as an
accused with a malafide intention to harass
and humiliate him.
6 All. U.O.I. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
9

16. 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."

17. 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"
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
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.""

18. 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."

19. 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."

20. 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
6 All. U.O.I. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
11
required to carefully scrutinize whether the
allegations
made
in
the
complaint
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."

21. 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."

22. 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. 866, (ii)
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192,
(iii)
Zandu
Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and
(iv) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

23. In S.W. Palankattkar & others
Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it
has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that quashing of the criminal proceedings is
an exception than a rule. The inherent
powers of the High Court itself envisages
three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the court
; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. The power of High Court is very
wide
but
should be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice
for which the court alone exists.

24. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
light of the observations and discussions
made above and keeping view the facts and
circumstances of the case, and from the
perusal of the record, the impugned
complaint proceedings pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in
Criminal Compliant Case No. 18 of 2012;
State v. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan, under
Section
24 of
the
Contract
Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, P.S.
Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, filed by
the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),
Lucknow, and all consequential orders
arising thereon, are liable to be quashed as
in the present case learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow has failed to apply his
judicial mind to the facts of the case and
the
law
applicable
thereto
while
entertaining the same, the Chief Judicial
Magistrate has not examined the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidences both oral and documentary in
support thereof.

25. Accordingly, the impugned
complaint proceedings pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in
Criminal Compliant Case No. 18 of 2012;
State v. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan, under
Section
24 of
the
Contract
Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, P.S.
Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, filed by
the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central),
Lucknow, and all consequential orders
arising thereon, are hereby quashed.

26. For the reasons discussed above,
the instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is allowed in
respect of the instant applicant, namely-
Union Bank of India.

27. Learned Senior Registrar of this
Court is directed to transmit a copy of this
order to the trial court concerned for its
necessary compliance.

28. No order as to cost(s).
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY J.

Application U/S 482 No. 13215 of 2024

Aman Sinha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 397 - Criminal
Revision - Dismissal of the revision in
default - No consideration on merit -
Permissibility - Madan Lal Kapoor's case
relied upon - Held, Principle that a
criminal appeal should not be dismissed
for default would also apply to criminal