IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1661 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., 30th Km Stone, Tumkur Road-NH4, Vishveshwarapura, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District-562123.
Represented by its Managing Director. ...PETITIONER (By Sri.Diwakara K., Adv.) AND:
Sri.S.Malayappan, S/o Late. Shivaralli, No.248, Gaoutham Nagar, Behind IOL, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru-560 022. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri. M Subramanya Bhat, Adv.) This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint dated 30.06.2011 filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein before the Hon’ble VIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru found at Annexure-A and to quash the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Hon’ble VIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent and consequential proceedings in C.C.No.5537/2012 found at Annexure-B, in the interest of justice.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner, aggrieved by the registration of a criminal case against it in C.C. No.5537/2012 on the file of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru has preferred this petition.
3. The respondent herein filed a complaint under S.34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'), against M/s. Sparr Equpiments Ltd., S. Ravi Chandran and M/s. Denso Kirloskar, the petitioner herein. The material allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant was an employee working with M/s. Sparr Equipments Ltd. He was unlawfully terminated. He challenged the termination before the Labour Court. The termination was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated. However, accused Nos.1 to 3 failed to implement the order / Award passed against them in I.D. NO. 158/1995 dated 08.08.2002 and hence he sought prosecution of the accused persons under S.29 of the Act.
4. Undeniably the petitioner herein is not a party to the dispute raised by the complainant in I.D. No.158/1995. Even the complaint does not spell out any specific allegation against the petitioner. The records indicate that the assets of accused No.1 namely M/s.Sparr Equipments Ltd. Were brought for sale in a liquidation proceedings and the petitioner herein purchased part of the properties in a public auction vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.1998. The said transaction does not render the petitioner herein liable for any of the criminal offence much less for non implementation of the Award as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and an abuse of due process of law.
Hence, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.5537/2012 pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru are hereby quashed only in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*