IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6053 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. MACLEAN S. RAPHAEL 2. SRI. SURAJ T. PLANT MANAGER 3. SRI. SANJAY AGARWAL PRODUCTION MANAGER 4. KIRAN KUMAR K. SUPERVISOR ALL ARE WORKING AT M/S 3M INDIA LTD. NO.48-51, 1ST PHASE, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100 (BY SRI: DIWAKARA K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, ... PETITIONERS BANGALORE-01 2. B.V. MAHESH S/O VIVEKANANDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.28, 18TH CROSS, I BLOCK, VISWAPRIYANAGAR, BEGUR, BANGALORE-68 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI: L.HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED:8.11.12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PCR NO.333/12 BEFORE THE C.J.M., B'LORE (R) DIST., BANGALORE FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:30.9.13 IN PCR NO.333/12 BY THE C.J.M., BANGALORE (R) DIST., BANGALORE FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP- II appearing for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that he was not allowed to open his locker and remove his personal belongings kept in the said locker.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the petitioner was removed from service after holding elaborate disciplinary proceedings. The allegation made by respondent No.2, even if accepted as true, do not constitute the ingredients of offences under Sections 405, 406, 415 or 420 Indian Penal Code. The attempt of respondent No.2 is to convert the alleged labour dispute into a criminal proceedings. Hence, the initiation of prosecution against the petitioners is vexatious and ulteriorly motivated and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
4. Learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 State however has argued in support of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the petitioners.
5. On going through the averments made in the complaint, it is noticed that respondent No.2/complainant has admitted the fact that after holding disciplinary enquiry, he was removed from service with effect from 30.12.2011. According to the complainant, he approached the petitioners’ company on 17.02.2012 seeking their leave to open the locker. The very fact that he has been removed from service on 30.12.2011, the complainant cannot expect to hold the locker in his name till 17.02.2012. Even otherwise, this allegation, does not bring the facts alleged in the complaint within the ambit of Sections 405, 406, 415 or 420 of Indian Penal Code. There is absolutely no allegation whatsoever in the complaint to indicate that the complainant had entrusted any property to the dominion of the petitioners. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.2 is that he himself has kept his belongings in the locker. Undisputedly, the locker belongs to the company and not to the complainant. Therefore, on the face of it, ingredient of Section 415 of Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the facts of the case. There are no allegations of any cheating or fraudulent intention in the entire complaint attracting the offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners being wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court cannot be allowed to be continued. The complainant appears to have filed these proceedings only to settle score with the company, which has taken action against respondent No.2 and removed him from service. Considering all these facts, the action initiated against the petitioners cannot be allowed to be continued.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.293/2012 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District are quashed.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2016 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-