High Court quashed FIR and proceedings regarding violation of Private Security Agencies Act. Court held Applicant employing own staff for security made no use of private security agency; thus Act inapplicable and FIR misconceived.
Proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.8/2018 by ISD Police Station, Bengaluru are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
CRL.P. NO.101325 OF 2018
C/W
CRL.P.NO.101324 OF 2018
IN CRL.P. NO.101325/2018
BETWEEN:
M/S. G.C.D MOTORS NO.17, DEVARAJA CAMP, BELAGAVI REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRCTOR, SRI. ROHIT S/O RAJABHAU DESHPANDE AGED 55 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, MANGESH MOTORS, NO.17, DEVARAJA CAMP, BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV.)
AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER ISD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS ON 5TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI IN FIR INITIATED UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCY (REGULATION) ACT, 2005 IN CRIME NO.8 OF 2018 BEFORE THE ISD POLICE STATION BENGALURU AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CRL.P.NO.101324/2018
BETWEEN:
M/S. MANGESH MOTORS NO.17, DEVARAJA CAMP, BELAGAVI REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. ROHIT S/O RAJABHAU DESHPANDE, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, MANGESH MOTORS, NO.17, DEVARAJA CAMP, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV.) AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ISD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS ON 5TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI IN FIR INITIATED UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE PRIVATE SECURITY REGULATION ACT, 2005 IN CRIME NO.8 OF 2018 BEFORE THE ISD POLICE STATION BENGALURU AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
In these two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is praying for quashing of registration of case in Crime No.8/2018 by ISD Police Station, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’).
4
details of the uniform, cadre, security staff engaged by the petitioner and details of the security agency from which the said security personnel were drawn by him. He submitted his reply dated 31.10.2017 to the Police Inspector, ISD, Belagavi furnishing certain particulars. Apparently, the Police Inspector ISD Police Station was not satisfied with the same and proceeded to register the case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act.
5
submitted by the petitioner on 31.10.2017, it is clearly stated by the petitioner that he had appointed six persons named in the complaint and the petitioner was paying PF and ESI etc. on their accounts and he was paying salary to those six persons himself. Therefore, he submits that the complaint itself is misconceived besides, illegal and same is liable to be set-aside.
the petitioner has violated the provisions under Section 20 of the Act and therefore, he has committed the offence. It is alleged in the complaint that in the establishment of
the petitioner, the following six persons were working as Security Guards:
6
7
secured any permission or license from the Internal Security Division, Bengaluru.
“4. Persons or Private Security Agency not to engage or provide private security guard without licence.- No person shall carry on or commence the business of private security agency, unless he holds a license issued under this Act:
Provided that the person carrying on the business of private security agency, immediately before the commencement of this Act, may continue to do so for a period of one year from the date of such commencement and if he has made an application for such license within the said period of one year, till the disposal of such application:
Provided that no private security agency shall provide private security abroad without obtaining permission of the Controlling Authority, which shall consult the Central Government before according such permission. ”
unmistakably shows that the requirement of taking license
8
under the Act arises only when a person or agency is running a business of private security agency.
purpose of this case are Sections 9, 10, and 12 and they read as under:
“9. Conditions for commencement of operation and engagement of supervisors.— (1) Every private security agency shall, within six months of obtaining the licence, commence its activities.
(2) Every private security agency shall ensure imparting of such training and skills to its private security guards and supervisors as may be prescribed:
Provided that the person carrying on the business of private security agency, before the commencement of this Act, shall ensure the required training to its security guards and supervisors within a period of one year from the date of such commencement.
(3) Every private security agency shall, within sixty days from the date of issue of the licence, employ such number of supervisors, as may be prescribed.
(4) A private security agency shall not employ or engage a person as a supervisor unless he fulfils the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of section 10.
9
(5) While engaging a supervisor of private security guards, every private security agency shall give preference to a person who has experience of serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force or any other Armed forces of the Union or State Police including armed constabularies and Home Guards for a period of not less than three years.”
“10. Eligibility to be a private security guard.— (1) A private security agency shall not employ or engage any person as a private security guard unless he—
(2) No person who has been convicted by a competent court or who has been dismissed or removed on grounds of misconduct or moral turpitude while serving in any of the armed forces of the Union, State
10
Police Organisations, Central or State Governments or in any private security agency shall be employed or engaged as a private security guard or a supervisor. (3) Every private security agency may, while employing a person as a private security guard, give preference to a person who has served as a member in one or more of the following, namely:—
(i) Army;
(ii) Navy;
(iii) Air Force;
(iv) any other armed forces of the Union;
(v) Police, including armed constabularies
of States; and
(vi) Home Guards.”
“12. Licence to be exhibited.- Every private security agency shall exhibit its licence or copy thereof in a conspicuous place of its business.”
11
“We are not a security service provider. We do not take service from any private security agency for securing our showroom. Therefore, the said Act i.e. “The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 is not at all applicable to our establishment.
It is pertinent to note that we don’t require private security service from any agency as we are self-sufficient in running our Honda Car showroom.
Since our showroom is big we have our own staff in dealing different departments such as sales, service, spares, accounts and HR. Likewise, we also have our own staff to take care of vehicles belonging to our esteemed customers and keep records. Each and every movement is recorded for our verification and customer satisfaction. The entire staff are working exclusively for our establishment alone and are appointed after accepting their respective applications and due verification of their antecedents. They are appointed, strictly
12
by following rules and regulations. We also have a dress code to our staff and the same are not at all resembling those of Police, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. None of our employees carry any kind of weapons either in legal or illegal manner, as it is not required for our establishment.
Please find a photograph attached herewith of out staff from various departments.
Sales Activities-White Stripes shirt with Dark Grey Trousers
Sales Front office Activities- Blue shirt with Black Trousers Service Mechanic ActivitiesDark and Grey shirt with Navy Blue Trousers Security Activities-Blue shirt with Black Trousers
Kindly note that these different uniforms help the customers in identifying the staff from different departments and ensure smooth running of our business. We hereby state that we are not carrying any business of private security agency nor are interested in commencing such service in future also. Therefore, the said act is not all applicable to our establishment. We have replied to the letter dated 6.10.2017 by
13
furnishing the details as required by your office. Hence, you are hereby requested to pass necessary orders by considering the above stated reasons.
Please find enclosed herewith the details of staff members who carry out the functions akin to security guards along with their salary paid details for last 3 months.”
| Sl. No. |
Name of Employee |
Date of Joining |
PF | ESI | July Salary |
Aug Salary |
Sept Salary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hasham khan Moulaali Jamadar |
1-Apr-16 | GBHBL1 1573850 0000000 58 |
585868 2093 |
9514 | 10705 | 9911 |
| 2 | Kiran Maruti Talwar |
1-Jun-17 | GBHBL1 1573850 0000101 02 |
503857 1065 |
11508 | 9056 | 9402 |
| 3 | Basavaraj Shankrappa Sannaveera ppannavar |
1-Jan-17 | GBHBL1 1573850 0000100 78 |
585880 1166 |
9056 | 9056 | 9779 |
| 4 | Zameer Ahmed MS Beppari |
1-Jan-17 | GBHBL1 1573850 0000100 74 |
585880 1168 |
9590 | 9402 | 9779 |
| 5 | Mahabalesh war Bhimappa Sunkad |
1-Feb-17 | GBHBL1 1573850 0000100 85 |
585851 3518 |
8293 | 9056 | 9779 |
| 6 | Sanjay Kallappa Durgayi |
1-Apr-17 | GBHBL1 1573850 0000101 00 |
585880 0577 |
9056 | 9402 | 10157 |
14
establishment, and secondly, six persons named in the FIR are his regular employees and in order to demonstrate the same, he has mentioned their PF and ESI account numbers under which he was making contributions as part of the employer’s contribution to their accounts. The above extract very clearly shows that six persons named in the complaint are direct employees of the petitioner himself and he was paying salaries to them and they were engaged in the task of maintaining security in the two showrooms owned by him, but they were not hired from any private security agency. This also shows that the personnel doing the security work are direct employees of the petitioner himself. It is also evident that the uniforms provided by him are not under the requirement of wearing uniforms as stipulated under the Act and the petitioner has allotted various kinds of uniforms to persons who are discharging various separate duties. In view of the above, the Act itself is not applicable to the present petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that he has violated Section 20 of the Act and that being the case, no
15
case could have been registered against him for having committed the offence under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, the whole case registered by the Police Inspector, ISD, Bengaluru in Crime No.8/2018 for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act is misconceived and the same has no sanction under the law and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The above petitions are allowed.
b) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in both petitions in Crime No.8/2018 by ISD Police Station,
Bengaluru is quashed.
JTR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the provisions of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 are applicable to an establishment employing its own staff for security duties instead of engaging a private security age
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for alleged violation of Section 20 of the Act is legally maintainable.
Whether the proceedings initiated under the said FIR are liable to be quashed as abuse of process of law.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. G.C.D MOTORS NO.17, DEVARAJA CAMP, BELAGAVI REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRCTOR, SRI. ROHIT S/O RAJABHAU DESHPANDE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER ISD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
P. KRISHNA BHAT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
