IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7344/2017 c/w CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7343/2017 In Crl.P.No.7344/2017 Between:
Sri. Mani K. Thomas, Aged about 67 years, S/o Sri. K.V. Thomas, Ex-Director, M/s. Elastrex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., [Shoe Division], Factory Seconds Showroom Ret.1, No.29A/1, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058. …Petitioner (By Sri. Prabhakar Rao K., Advocate) And:
The Senior Labour Inspector, 40th Circle, “Karmika Bhavan”, 2nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. …Respondent (By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP) ***** This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint vide Annexure – A and also the entire proceedings on the file of the MMTC – II, Bengaluru in C.C.No.4615/2016.
In Crl.P.No.7343/2017 Between:
Sri. Mani K. Thomas, Aged about 67 years, S/o Sri. K.V. Thomas, Ex-Director, M/s. Elastrex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., [Shoe Division], Factory Seconds Showroom Ret.1, No.29A/1, 2nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058. …Petitioner (By Sri. Prabhakar Rao K., Advocate) And:
The Senior Labour Inspector, 40th Circle, “Karmika Bhavan”, 2nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. …Respondent (By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP) ***** This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 19.05.2016 which is at Annexure – B taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner U/S 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and etc.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER In these two petitions, the petitioner being common, has challenged the orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court II), Bengaluru, in C.C.Nos.4615/2016 and 4614/2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled position of law that when a criminal action is sought to be taken against the Directors of a company, the same cannot be done without arraying the company itself as accused in criminal proceedings. In that regard, the learned counsel places reliance on three judgments of this Court in the cases of Mr.Vigneshwar Gopal Krishna Bhat and another vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.2872/2018 which was disposed of on 28.06.2018; Sri.Joseph Zachariah and others vs. Sri.H.N. Devaraj and another in Crl.P.No.7666/2018 and connected matter which was disposed on 18.01.2019 and B.K.Panduranga vs. The State reported in LLR 2016 0 362.
3. In the above cases, the co-ordinate benches have placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. Reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that liability of the company and the Directors requires to be considered with reference to the company and the nature of its entity and applicability of the criminal liability on the Directors of the company. It was held that a company being a juristic person, criminal liability can be fastened on it. If a company is not fastened with any criminal liability and only for prosecution purpose the persons incharge of the company are arrayed as parties without arraigning the company as a party, then complaint is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enumeration of that legal position applies on all fours in the present case. While drawing the attention of this Court to the proceedings before the Magistrate, it is pointed out that the company is not arraigned as a party while only the petitioner who is an ex-director of the company has been arraigned as an accused and therefore, in terms of the decisions of the co-ordinate benches in the cases mentioned above, it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
5. Learned HCGP submits that though the petitions were allowed in the case of Mr.Vigneshwar Gopal Krishna Bhat and another and other matters, liberty was granted to the complainants to file a complaint afresh in accordance with law and the very same liberty may be reserved.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP and perused the petition papers.
7. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitions are required to be allowed in terms of the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.
8. The complaints filed by the 40th Circle Senior Labour Inspector in C.C. Nos.4615/2016 and 4614/2016 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court II), Bengaluru, and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file a complaint afresh, if so advised after curing defects in accordance with law.
It is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-