Dismissed¶¶18

Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025A482/10429/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected by Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench); child labour complaint; Sections 3A and 12, Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act, 1986; Criminal Complaint Case No.55132 of 2024; summoning/order dated 15.11.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow upheld; statements under Sections 200 and 202 C.P.C.; 'mini trial' at interlocutory stage impermissible; factual questions deferred to trial; inherent powers; Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow.

What did the court decide?

The High Court cannot conduct a 'mini trial' at this stage to determine whether the offence has been committed or not; such factual aspects can be gone into during the trial only. ¶¶17

Pintu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.55132 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Pintu Yadav) under Sections 3A and 12 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act, 1986, and the summoning order dated 15.11.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The High Court cannot conduct a 'mini trial' at this stage to determine whether the offence has been committed or not; such factual aspects can be gone into during the trial only.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Whether the child labour employed in the shop of the applicant was his cousin brother or not cannot be ascertained at this stage; it is a factual aspect of the matter for determination during trial.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The summons were issued against the applicant after considering the relevant record as well as the statement of the complainant.ratio¶¶17
There is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order and this Court finds no ground to interfere in the matter while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J. (single judge), December 9, 2025 — Application U/S 482 No.- 10429 of 2025 filed by Pintu seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.55132 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Pintu Yadav) under Sections 3A and 12 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act, 1986, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, and the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow — REJECTED. Held: summons were issued after recording statement(s) under Sections 200 and 202 C.P.C. and after visiting the shop, upon consideration of the relevant record and the complainant's statement; the Court cannot undertake a 'mini trial' at this stage on whether the offence was committed; whether the child employed was the applicant's cousin brother (counsel claiming him to be the son of the applicant's mausi) is a factual matter resolvable only at trial; no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order; no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10429 of 2025

Pintu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 16

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.55132 of 2024, State of U.P. Vs. Pintu Yadav, under Sections 3A and 12 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act, 1986, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow and the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the applicant was not present at his shop, two persons came to the shop. When he came back to his shop, his cousin brother handed over a letter to the applicant. On asking about the said letter, his cousin brother informed him that two persons had visited the shop and gave this letter to handover the same to the owner of the shop, wherein the allegation of employment of child is levelled. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and a concocted case has been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner before the Labour Court. He also submits that notice was never served upon the applicant and without giving any information and opportunity of hearing, summons have been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that child labourer as mentioned in the complaint, is son of the aunt (mausi) of the applicant.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I has submitted that after recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 C.P.C. and

¶13

A482 No. 10429 of 2025

¶14

¶15

after visiting the shop in question, the complaint has been filed. The trial court has also summoned the applicant after going through the record as well as the statements, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the same.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

After going through the record as well as the submissions of the rival parties, I find that the summons have been issued against the applicant after considering the relevant record as well as the statement of the complainant. This Court cannot do mini trial at this stage whether the offence has been committed or not. It also cannot be ascertained as to whether the child labour employed in the shop of the applicant was his cousin brother or not, as these are factual aspect of the matter, which can be gone into during the trial only. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order.

¶18

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected.

¶19

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶20

December 9, 2025

¶21

Rao/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devendra Pratap Singh @ Devkaran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Saurabh Mishra Alias Kallu Batista and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Prasad Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Geetanjali Vs the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kunda Distt. Pratapgarh and 4 Others