Allowed

Ramchandran Jaiprakash v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC3 Jan 2019CR. MISC./2508/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, held infructuous as the underlying liability was discharged via a modified award and acceptance of a cheque.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 07.04.2008 passing order of cognizance under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the petitioner stands quashed.

Ramchandran Jaiprakash Vs the State of Bihar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2508 of 2010

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ramchandran Jaiprakash, General Manager, Bata India Limited, Bataganj, Digha, Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

¶8

Sri Bindeshwari Prasad S/o D. Nawal Lal, Resident of Village-Saguna Danapur, P.O.-Danapur Cantt, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna.

¶9

===============	====	... ... Opposite Party/s ===================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s For the State ===============	: : ====	Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. D.N.Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Preety Kunwar, Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate ===================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date : 03-01-2019

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

Despite service of notice and learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 3, nobody appeared when the matter was taken up and heard.

¶15

The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following relief:

¶16

“That this application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing an order dated 7.4.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 524(C2)/2008 (State vrs. Bata India Ltd.), by which he

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2508 of 2010 dt.03-01-2019 2/3

¶18

has taken cognizance against the petitioner u/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and transferred the case to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Patna for trial and disposal.”

¶19

The opposite party no. 2 had passed order in favour of opposite party no. 3 in Reference Case No. 3 of 1996 on 30.05.2007, by way of an award which was pronounced on 05.07.2007. In terms thereof, the order of termination of service of opposite party no. 3 by the petitioner was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits. Non compliance of the same resulted in opposite party no. 2 filing Complaint Case No.524(C-2) of 2008 in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as of today, the matter, for all practical purposes, has become infructuous inasmuch as, the main order upon which complaint was filed against the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2, itself has been interfered by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11894 of 2007 by order dated 03.04.2014. Learned counsel referred to Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today, which is copy of the order dated 03.04.2014, which shows that

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2508 of 2010 dt.03-01-2019 3/3

¶22

upon accepting cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,63,243/- by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3, the Court had recorded the compromise and the award also has been modified to that extent.

¶23

Learned A.P.P. submitted that in view of the award having been modified and the petitioner having discharged his liability, as per the modified terms, nothing remains in the complaint case which is under challenge in the present application.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. The order dated 07.04.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 524(C-2) of 2008 taking cognizance under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against the petitioner, stands quashed.

¶25

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶26

P. Kumar

¶27

AFR/NAFR U T

Ramchandran Jaiprakash v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandran Jaiprakash v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

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

Rameshwar Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Roshan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raj Kumari Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Vikash Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dhananjay Paswan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Munni Kumari @ Munni Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.