Ravi Pisherodi Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER, TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3/PETITIONERS, IN CC NO.1182/2015 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 22A OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DHARWAD.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶26

Heard Sri Abhinandan M.G., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Girija Hiremath, leanred High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶27

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:

¶28

“To quash the entire proceedings against the Accused No.1 and 3/Petitioners, in C.C.No.1182/2015, for the alleged offence U/sec.22A of Minimum Wages Act, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Court, Dharwad.”

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14726 CRL.P No. 102593 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶33

3.1. Petitioners were working as Executive Director and Divisional Manager in Tata Motors Limited, P.B. road, Belur Industrial Area, Dharwad.

¶34

Respondent No.2 initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioners and others under Section 22(b) and Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad, alleging the violation of Rules punishable under Section 22(1)(i)(a), Rules 28 (2) and 29(b1) of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 and punishable under Section 22A of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶35

Second respondent contended that on 09.09.2015 when he visited the Tata Motors Limited company for inspection of records, petitioners herein did not co-operate and produce the necessary books of account as is required under the Minimum Wages Act in respect of the employees of the company.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14726 CRL.P No. 102593 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

In that regard, a report was prepared by respondent

¶39

No.2 and a notice was issued on 10.09.2015 which was served on the Tata Motors Limited company demanding the reasons for not providing the payment register book.

¶40

It is further case of the respondent No. 2 that there was no compliance to the callings of notice nor there was any suitable reply.

¶41

Learned trial Magistrate after receipt of the complaint, without holding any further enquiry registered the case as C.C.No.1182/2015. Petitioner challenged the said order in Crl.R.P.No.78/2016.

¶42

Learned District Judge without noticing the flaw in not following the procedure required to be adopted by the learned Magistrate in registering the case, dismissed the revision petition.

¶43

Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14726 CRL.P No. 102593 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Sri Abhinandan M.G., learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contented that approach of the trial Magistrate as well as the learned District Judge in the criminal petition is up against the procedure established under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, sought for quashing of the pending criminal case against the petitioners.

¶47

In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the order rendered in Criminal Petition No.102463/2018, wherein the petitioner was accused No.2 in the very same case and submits that this Court after noting the relevant provisions, quashed the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the present petitioners are also required to be accorded the same relief.

¶48

Smt. Girja Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader however contended that the grounds raised in the petition are matters of evidence and anyway the petitioners are now retired from the service. Therefore they can take the necessary defence in the pending criminal trial. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14726 CRL.P No. 102593 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶53

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that notice came to be issued by respondent No.2 alleging the irregularities in not complying the rules under the Minimum Wages Act on 10.09.2015. There was no compliance to the callings of notice.

¶54

Learned trial Magistrate after receipt of the complaint, without following the requisite procedure and without taking the cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners, straightaway registered the criminal proceedings resulting in very registration of the criminal case itself illegal.

¶55

This Court while considering the case of second accused in the very same criminal case, by detailed order dated 23.06.2023 quashed the pending criminal case as against the accused No. 2.

¶56

Present petitioners are accused No.1 and 3 and they are also stand on the same footing that of the accused No. 2.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14726 CRL.P No. 102593 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Therefore, without further discussing on the merits of

¶61

the matter, on the ground of parity, pending proceedings as against these petitioners are also required to be quashed.

¶62

Accordingly, the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Consequently, pending Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.1182/2015, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Court, Dharward is hereby quashed.

¶65

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶66

MR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Ravi Pisherodi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Pisherodi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh S/O Dundappa Meti Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Rudramuniyappa Muddannavar Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr. Suraj Naik Soni Vs Mr. Dinakar Keshav Shetty

Fatima W/O Mohammad Hanif Makandar Vs the State by Bailhongal Ps.

Somu Alias Somashekhar S/O Veerappa Hullur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt N Manjula D/O. Late Thippaish Shetty Vs Smt Y Nagarathanamma D/O. Chaluvaiah