IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7323 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Sri.Sheik Iqbal, Proprietor of Prestige Furnitures, 24th Cross, Near BSK BDA Complex, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070.
(By Sri.Hemanth Kumar K, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By Banashankari Police, Banashankari, Bengaluru – 560 050. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Petitioner 2. Smt.Vani Kantli, Aged about 38 years, State Sanchalaki for Bachpan Bachao Andolan, 1st Cross, 1st Floor, C.K.Achukattu, Bengaluru – 560 085.
(By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP for R1) … Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.15805/2017 (Crime No.157/2016) registered by the Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences P/U/S 370 of IPC, Section 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Sections 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Hemanth Kumar.K, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Records perused.
2. This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.15805/2017 registered by the respondent Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to file an application for his discharge before the trial Court as the charges have not yet been framed.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking his discharge before the trial Court.
5. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-