Allowed

Mr.Rehan Khan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Nov 2021CRL OP/19608/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. It held that Section 11(2) of the Act bars cognizance of offences if the complaint is filed after six months from the alleged date of commission, which was violated in the present case.

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P.No.19608 of 2017 allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.1941 of 2015 quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mr.Rehan Khan Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.11.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19608 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11828 & 11829 of 2017

¶6

Rehan Khan Former Managing Director, Abbott India Ltd. No.147, Greams Road, III Floor, Chennai – 600 006.

¶7

... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Asst. Labour Commissioner Chennai – 35.

¶10

... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.1941 of 2015 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and quash the same.

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No.1941 of 2015 pending on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, filed for violating certain procedures in not maintaining the Books properly, which is punishable under Section 9 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.

¶13

2.The punishment provided for such violation is a fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complaint has been filed beyond the period of the limitation of six

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

months, therefore, the Court cannot take cognizance of the complaint made beyond the period of limitation.

¶16

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent, and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

4.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the alleged violation attracts punishment of fine only. Section 11 of the Act reads as follows:

¶18

“11. Cognizance of offence.—(1) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

¶19

(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, unless the complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

¶20

5.Sub-Clause (2) of Clause 11 makes it clear that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence, if the complaint is made beyond the period of six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The very complaint itself indicates that, inspection was conducted on 29.10.2014 and the alleged offence is stated to have been deducted on that day. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of six months, whereas, in this case, the complaint has been filed on 25.05.2015, i.e., beyond the period of six months, which is expressly barred by limitation. So, the Court cannot take cognizance of the same.

¶21

6.In such view of the matter, when the Statute itself bars the Court from taking cognizance after a period of six months from the date of alleged occurrence, such complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶22

7.Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1941 of 2015 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

psa/mkn

¶29

¶30

The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. -Do thro The Judicial Magistrate, Egmore Chennai.

¶31

The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai – 35. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +2cc to M/s.King and Partridge, Advocate, S.R.No.60520

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.19608 of 2017

¶33

BS(CO) CT 08/12/2021

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.Rehan Khan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Rehan Khan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Balakrishnan Vs State Rep. by

Mr.Anandadeep Mandal, 34 Yrs, Vs Ms.Ruchi Sharma, Aged 33 Years

S.Vasudevan, Aged 60 Yrs Vs State Rep.by

K.Jayamani, F/45 Years Vs D.Kannan

Mr.Rehan Khan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.Rehan Khan Vs State of Tamil Nadu