Allowed

Umesh Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2024CRLP/8252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Section 79 Juvenile Justice Act for alleged child labour. Court found no allegations of bondage or withholding earnings; ingredients of offence absent. Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.223 of 2024 before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar quashed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Umesh Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶6

CRIMINA L PETITION NO: 8252 OF²⁰²⁴

¶7

Between:

¶8

Umesh Agarwal, S/o. Late Narayan^{Lal,Aged About 50 years, Occ. Business'} Rl/o. Plot^-No. 69/8, Ravindra^{Society, Mahapur, Sherlingampally, KavuriHills,} Telangana

¶9

...Petitioner / Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{Public ProsecutorHighCourt Buildings,} Telangana

¶12

Smt Chinthala Sreelatha, W/o.^{Siddulu, Age 34 year, Caste Mudiraj'} Occ.ORW (DCPU Staff),^{Rl/o.Siddanthi, Shamshabad, RangareddyDistrict}

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court maybe} pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.^{No. 223 of 2024 on the file of the} Hon'ble Principle Junior civil^{Judge, Shadnagar, Rangareddy Districtfor offence} under Section 79 0f the Juvenile^{Justice care and Protectionof children Act 2015} against the Petitioner / Sole Accused.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court maybe} pleased to stay all further^proceedings in c.c.^{No. 223 of 2024 on the file of the} Hon'ble Principle Junior Civil Judge,^{Shadnagar, Rangareddy District for offence} under section 79 0f the^{Juvenile Justice care and Protection of childrenAct 2015} against the Petitioner / Sole Accused.

¶17

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^{Ravish Kedia,} Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.^'1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.^2.

¶19

The Court made the following Order :

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.8252of 2024}

¶22

oBDER:

¶23

This Criminal^{Petition is filed underScction482 of Code} of Criminal^{Procedure, 1973 (for short'Cr'P'C'Jto quash the} proceedings against^{the petitioner/ accused in C'C'No'223 of} 2024onthel.rleofthelearnedPrincipal.JurriorCivilJuclge, Shadnagar,^{RangareddyDistrict,registered for the offences} punishable under^{Section 79 of thc Juvcnile} 'Justice^{Act' 2015} (for short 'the ActJ.

¶24

The brief facts^{of the casc are Lhat rcspondentNo'21de} fzcto^{complainantlodged a complaint bt:forcthe Police against} the petitioner^{statingthat she is r.r'orkingars ORW in District} Child Protection^{Unit.When the said Unit u'as perlbrming} rescue Operation^{of Smile X inthe limits o[Nandigama} Mandal, they^{found two boys u'ere u'orking inthe Ansh} Econest Company^{Rooms, on enquirythey revealed that the} bothboyswerechildlabour.Thcownerctftlresaidcompany was forced to^{do hard work to the victim boys' Basingon the} said complaint,^{the Policeregistereda case in CrimeNo' 17 of}

¶25

¶26

SI(S,J CrLP.No.a252 of 2024

¶27

2024 for the offence punishable under Section 79 of the Act and after completion of investigation, they hled charge sheet, vide C.C.No.223 of 2024, before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Rangareddy District.

¶28

Heard Sri Ravish Kedia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosccutor appearing on behall of respondent No. I-Statc. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶29

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the re are no ingredients of exploitation of child employee, as such, Section 79 of the Act docs not attract against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Additionat Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations levelcd against thc petitioncr, requires trial. At this stage, quashing of

¶31

¶32

¶33

sr(s,J crLP.No.8252 of²⁰²⁴

¶34

proceedings^{againstthe petitioner doesnot arise' Hence' he} prayed the^{Courtto dismiss the criminalpetition'}

¶35

In the light^{of the submissions madeby both the learned} counsel and^{a perusalof the material available on record' it} appears^{that the petitionerwas charged for the offence} punishable^{is underSection79 of the Act'It is pertinentto} note that^{the averments in the complaintdo not reveal that} howmanyhoursvictimworkingandwhatthcsalaryisbeing paid by the^{petitioner'Moreover,the essentialingredient to} attract the^{offence underSection79 of the Act is that the} minor chitd^{must be kept inbondage forpurpose of} employment^{or the earning of the child should be r'r"ithheld or} suchearningsshallbeusedbyemployerforl-risownpurposc, whereasthesaidallegationsarenotthereinthecomplaintor in the charge^sheet.

¶36

In view of^{the abovediscussion and consideringthe facts} and circumstances^{of the case,this Court is of the considered} opinion that^{sinceneither the victimskept inbondage for} purpose of employment^{nor the petitionerengagedthe victims} without paying^{any amount, therefore' the offence punishable} under Section^{79 of the Act does not attract to thc present}

¶37

¶38

sIrs,J crLP.No.8252 of 2024

¶39

case and the procecdings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶40

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.223 of 2024 oo the hle of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Rangareddy District, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶42

stand closed.

¶43

Sd/. T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

S CTION OFFICER

To,

The Principle^{Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar,Rangareddy District}

¶49

The Judicial First^{Class Magistrate at Shadnagar}

¶50

The Station House^{Officer, Nandigama PS, Cyberabad District}

¶51

4.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

One CC to Sri Ravish^{Kedia,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD CoPies

Vtugh

f^yrc". ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912024

ORDER

CRLP.No.8252 of 2024

( t1 c. /."
( o
($
1 2 iltiU 2u24
,<br>!
!:,('

¶61

pm C.,. lq\ro>t{,

¶62

ALLOWING THE CRLP

Umesh Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Agarwal v. The State of Telangana

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

Mohd. Mateen Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana

Saini Venugopal Vs The State of Telangana

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mala Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Pasumarthi Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Vijay Prasad Vs The State of Telangana