Dismissed¶44

Dr Prakash G C IAS v. Sri Puttegowda

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2025CRL.P/5628/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), M G Uma J, 13.01.2025, CRL.P No. 5628 of 2018: S.482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition dismissed. Offence under S.29 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for non-implementation of reinstatement award dated 13.03.2012 (ID No.4/2001); complaint (PCR 79/2017, CC 1200/2017, II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Mandya) held not barred by delay as it followed the Labour Commissioner's prosecution-permission order dated 27.12.2016; non-joinder of employer company held curable; retirement of accused-former Managing Director held no ground to quash; prima facie offence found. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the quashing petition was dismissed. The respondent was declared at liberty to implead Mysore Sugar Company Limited, represented by any authorized person including the petitioner, if so advised. ¶44

Dr Prakash G C IAS Vs Sri Puttegowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. +2 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There is no merit in the contention of inordinate delay: the Labour Officer's order permitting prosecution was passed on 27.12.2016 and the private complaint followed immediately thereafter on 13.02.2017.

¶36

Key takeaways

Non-arrayal of Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. as accused is a curable defect, which the respondent can cure by impleading the company represented by the present accused.ratio¶38
Retirement from service is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings; the petitioner, admittedly the Managing Director who did not implement the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, has prima facie committed the offence under Section 29 of ID Act.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by Dr. Prakash G.C., IAS, former Managing Director of Mysore Sugar Company Limited, seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.1200/2017 (earlier PCR No.79/2017) before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, for offences punishable under Section 29 of the ID Act, 1947, arising from non-implementation of the award dated 13.03.2012 in ID No.4/2001 (reinstatement with compensation, continuity of service and consequential benefits), prosecution having been launched after the Labour Commissioner's permission order dated 27.12.2016. HELD: (i) no inordinate delay, the complaint of 13.02.2017 having been filed immediately after the permission order of 27.12.2016; (ii) non-arrayal of Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. as accused is a curable defect, curable by impleading the company represented by the present accused; (iii) retirement from service is no ground to quash, the petitioner having prima facie committed the offence under Section 29 of ID Act as the Managing Director who failed to implement the award. Petition dismissed; respondent at liberty to implead the company through any authorized person including the petitioner.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:1128 CRL.P No. 5628 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5628 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. PRAKASH G.C. IAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED, NO.36, 2^ND FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052

¶10

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

(BY SMT. M.V. ASHWINI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

SRI. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O. SRI. CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, SAHUKAR BADAVANE, GUTHAL COLONY, MANDYA - 571 402

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA IN C.C.NO.1200/2017 AND EARLIER REGISTERED AS PCR NO.79/2017 AND ALLOW THE PETITION AS IT IS NECESSARY.

¶18

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:1128 CRL.P No. 5628 of 2018

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner being the accused is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him by respondent/complainant in PCR No.79/2017 pending in CC.No.1200/2017, on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, for the offences punishable under Section 29 of ID Act, 1947.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that, respondentcomplainant was the employee under Mysore Sugar Company Limited, Mysore, and he was ordered to be terminated from the service. Respondent raised industrial dispute and filed ID No.4/2001 before the Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Mysore. The said claim was allowed as per award dated 13.03.2012, and the order dismissing the complainant from service was set aside. He was ordered to be reinstated, paid compensation with continuity of service and consequential benefit. Inspite of passing the award by the Labour Court, Mysore in favour of the complainant, the same was not implemented and the Labour commissioner passed an order on 27.12.2016, according permission for the complainant to prosecute the accused. Accordingly, the private complaint in PCR No.79/2017 came to

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1128 CRL.P No. 5628 of 2018

¶26

be filed on 13.02.2017. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence as per order dated 19.05.2017 on the basis of the sworn statement and documents produced by the complainant and registered CC No.1200/2017. The petitioner being accused is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him pending in CC No.1200/2017.

¶27

Heard Smt. M.V.Ashwini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M., learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on records.

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

“Whether the Petitioner has made

¶30

out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶31

My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:1128 CRL.P No. 5628 of 2018

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

It is the contention of the petitioner that there is

¶36

inordinate delay in lodging the criminal proceedings as the award was passed on 13.03.2012. The complaint came to be filed during 2017. But the materials on record disclose that the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore came to be passed on 13.03.2012 and the Labour Officer has passed the order on 27.12.2016 according permission to the complainant to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 29 of ID Act. Immediately, thereafter, private complaint in PCR No.79/2017 came to be filed on 13.02.2017. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the contentions taken by the petitioners regarding delay in prosecuting the petition.

¶37

Second contention raised by the learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioner is that the petitioner is only an employee under Mysore Sugar Company Ltd., but he is arrayed as the accused in his personal capacity. The petitioner is already retired from service. Under such circumstances, he is not liable to answer the criminal prosecution. Ofcourse, Mysore Sugar Company Ltd., is not arrayed as accused, but it is a curable defect that can be cured by the respondent by impleading the Mysore

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1128 CRL.P No. 5628 of 2018

¶40

Sugar company Ltd., as one of the accused represented by the present accused.

¶41

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already retired from service cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, as it is stated that he is retired from service one year ago, whereas, the criminal proceedings was initiated long back in the year 2017. Admittedly, he was working as Managing Director and he has not implemented the order of the Industrial Tribunal Mysore. Hence he has prima-facie committed the offence under Section 29 of ID Act. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification for seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶42