Sri Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. SAMUEL S. GEORGE S/O LATE EZELINA GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION, P.B. NO.4370, KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.607/2025 REGISTERED BY HOSAKOTE P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 16, 17, 18 OF BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1976, SEC. 14 OF CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986 AND SEC. 370 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF LD. PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGLAURU.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Special Case No.607/2025 registered by Hosakote Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Section 14 of Child

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 370 of Indian Penal Code on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶33

The present case reflects a most unfortunate state of affairs. Despite specific directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Magistrate, in clear disregard of those directions, has once again passed a non-speaking order, taken cognizance, and committed the matter to the Principal District and Sessions Judge to proceed against the petitioners – accused Nos.2 to 6.

¶34

Before proceeding further, this Court finds it appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier proceedings. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the said order, which are germane to the present controversy, are extracted hereinbelow:

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

"4. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate on 20.10.2016. the order sheet reads as follows:

¶39

Date:

¶40

Submitted:

¶41

The I.O. has submitted charge sheet in Crime No.406/2016 of Hosakote PS against the accused for the offence U/s 16, 17, 18 of

¶42

B.L.S.Act, IPC 370.

¶43

The accused 1 to 5 is

¶44

anticipatory bail.

¶45

Checked the chargesheet and the same is here with put for

¶46

kind orders to register as CC.

¶47

For kind order: ORDER

¶48

Cognizance taken U/Sec. 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Register the case in Register No.III as CC and issue SS/NBW to the accused returnable by 26.12.2016.

¶49

5. The above order on the face of it indicates that the learned Magistrate has failed to advert his mind to the facts of the case. The petitioner has taken up a specific plea that the victim was aged more than 14 years and therefore it does not fall within the definition of Section 2 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

6. The other contentions urged by the petitioners is that the provisions of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 are not applicable to the petitioners. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners, it was required to the Magistrate to satisfy himself that the facts alleged against the petitioners made out the offences under the provisions of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 as well as Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. That having not been done the impugned order cannot be sustained."

¶53

On a plain reading of the extracted portion, it becomes evident that the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate does not advert to the materials on record. Paragraphs 5 and 6, extracted supra, clearly reveal that specific directions were issued to the learned Magistrate to examine the materials and determine whether the case warranted taking cognizance.

¶54

Notwithstanding the categorical directions of this Court, it is indeed regrettable that the learned Magistrate, overlooking the same, has once again proceeded to pass a mechanical order without adverting to the directions

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

earlier issued. This Court therefore considers it appropriate

¶59

to reproduce paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the impugned

¶60

order, which read as follows:

¶61

" COMMITTAL ORDER

¶62

The PSI of Hoskote Police Station has submitted final report against the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 in Crime No.406-2016 of Hoskote Police Station.

¶63

2. On perusal of the final report, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 is taken against the accused Nos.1 to 6 and they are presently on bail.

¶64

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused No.1 reported as dead and case against accused No.1 is abated. The prosecution papers supply to the accused Nos.2 to 6 as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The offence alleged against the accused Nos.2 to 6 are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Hence, this case has to be committed to the Court of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District for further proceedings."

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

The core issue for consideration stands

¶69

crystallized by the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The learned Magistrate was duty-bound to examine the precise nature of the allegations against the petitioners and to record a reasoned satisfaction as to whether the ingredients of the offences under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 are made out. These directions were neither advisory nor optional; they were binding, and strict adherence to them was a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction to take cognizance.

¶70

In the light of paragraph 6 of the earlier order, extracted supra, the present impugned order demonstrably fails to advert to the materials on record.

¶71

This Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind; the order is cryptic, mechanical, and in the teeth of the binding directions of this Court. Non-

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

compliance with a remand direction amounts to a jurisdictional error and undermines judicial discipline. Interference is therefore warranted at the threshold. Further, issuance of notice to respondent No.2 at this stage would only operate to the advantage of the petitioners and stall the proceedings; in the interest of respondent No.2 – complainant, notice is dispensed with. The learned HCGP has been heard and has supported the prosecution.

¶75

Having regard to the above, the impugned order— being non-speaking, mechanical, and passed in derogation of the specific directions of this Court—cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶76

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(i) The impugned order taking cognizance and the consequent committal order dated

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:38566 CRL.P No. 10946 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

28.06.2025 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate.

¶83

(ii) Upon remand, the learned Magistrate shall notify all parties, re-hear the matter, and pass a fresh, reasoned (speaking) order strictly in conformity with the directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.9065/2017. In doing so, the learned Magistrate shall specifically advert to the materials on record and record a clear finding on whether each ingredient of the alleged offences under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 is made out. Departure from the directions of this Court shall not be countenanced.

¶84

(iii) All contentions of both sides on the merits are left open to be urged before the learned Magistrate.

¶85

Pending I.A. No.1/2025 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶86

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶87

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha 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

Dr K Asha Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrashaker G Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Obinna Francis Okoli Vs the Intelligence Officer

Prathik Dighe Vs the State of Karnataka

M E Mohammed Kureshi Vs B C Gappanna

Vikas Vs the State of Karnataka