Allowed

Chaga Mallikarjun Reddy v. High Court for the State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2025CRLP/11815/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition against a mill owner prosecuted after a raid found fifteen minors working at his ginning mill. The charge sheet showed all children had completed fourteen years, so provisions on employment of children were inapplicable, and no statement showed compulsory labour. Proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 875 of 2020 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadwal, quashed.

Chaga Mallikarjun Reddy Vs High Court for the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11815 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chaga IVlallikarjun Reddy, S/o Yanadi Reddy, Aged.45 yrs, Occ. Business, Kachiguda Station, South Central Railway, R/o'170, Sri Laxmi Venkataramana Mill, Aiza Road, Paramala, GADWAL Rural.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

....Respondent No.1

¶13

P.Mahesh Kumar, S/o Not Known, Aged- Ivlajor, Occ. Labour Officer, GADWAL DISTRICT.

¶14

...Respondent No.2/De-Facto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section SZA ot ANISS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 875 ol 2020 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Gadwal, against the Petitioner/Accused.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I I ; i r i i I I i I i i i I I I I I I

¶19

.I'HE I-IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,TUKARAMJI

¶20

t,W2o,4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This C.inrrral Petition is filed under Section 528 cf Bharatiya Nagarik Sura <s lra Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 202 3'), seeking quashment ol t1e proceedings against the petitioner ir C C.No.B75 of 2020 on th,e fil: of the learned Additional Judicial Magislrate of First Class, Gadvral.

¶23

The petitiorrer is sole accused in the Calendar Case r=gistered for the offences; p:,unis;hable under Sections 374 of the lnd an lrenal Code, 1860 (for shol'the l.P.C.'), Sections 3,7, 8, 14 of tre Ohitd Labour (Prohibition ,\rrd Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act. .l 9grj,).

¶24

I have hearJ Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned coLrnsel for the petitioner arrd [{'.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned t\dditional public Prosecutor, r'errrr: ;enting respondent No.1-State.

¶25

The c;rs,:r o' the prosecution, in brief is that, on December 1g,2017, at approxim'atr::ly l1:30 hours, Respondent No. 2, accomtrianied by a specially constrtrted team, conducted a raid on the premises of sri Laxmi venkateswara GirrTing and processing Mills, located on the outskirts of Paramala Villa3<l in Gadwal Mandal. During the operation. fifteen (15)

¶26

¶27

N.IRJ

¶28

Cr/.P.No.l / 8/ 5 of 2021

¶29

minors were discovered working within the establishment, in contravention of applicable child labour laws.

¶30

Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, who is identified as the owner and proprietor of the said ginning and processing mill. Following a comprehensive investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the matter was formally taken on the file of the learned Additional Judicial [Iagistrate of First Class, Gadwal, assigned Calendar Case No. 875 of 2020.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the individuals alleged to be victims in the present case are all above the age of 14 years and, therefore, qualify as adolescents under the relevant legal framework. Consequently, he argued that the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences are not satisfied in the present case, and thus, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be untenable. Accordingly, he prayed for the quashment of the proceedings. Further pointed to an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Ciminal Petition No. 5307 of 2024, and pleaded that after considering similar allegations and examining the merits of the case, quashed the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners therein.

¶32

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in response, fairly conceded .that^{in the authority cited by the petitioner-arisingunderanalogous}

¶33

¶34

NmJ ( t | \0.17 Eli a[2021

¶35

factual and l':rga I circumstances-this Court had Indeed ]Uashed the proceedings, aJair st the petitioner thdrein.

¶36

7 . I haver p er L s;ed the materials on record.

¶37

Before^,'lel/ing into the factual matrix and the mer ts o.' the present case, it is :c)nriidered appropriate, for the sake of clarity and comprehensiv() understanding, to first reproduce the provisions corresponding to the alleged offences, as extracted heretrnder:

¶38

Section 374 lF:C

¶39

"3;'4. Unlawful compulsory labour.-Whoever unlav{ully compels any perscl lc abour against the will oflhat person, shaI be puni{ hed with imprisonr enl of e(her description for a term which fitay exten,l to one year, o| w th l ine or with both."

¶40

Secflons 3 ',7, i3 ,1,1d 14 of the Act 1986:

¶41

"3 F'r3hibition of employment of children in certain ocr upations and prcce;ses. - No child shall be employed or permitted to..vork in any of the occuplticns set forth in Part A of the Schedule or in any v,orkshop whereir any⁽ f the processes set forth in part B of the Scher1ule i; carried on:

¶42

Pr:rvided that nothing in this section shall apply to any v,,orkshop whereir a-ry p rccess is carried on by the occupier with the ai,l of t is family or to any sr;lool established by, or receiving assistance (1r re(;ognitton from Gc,verrnnrr:nt.

¶43

7.^-lours and period of work.- ('l) No child shall b,: recrurred or permitted lo ,ncrk rn any establishment in excess of such nur.tber of hours as may be pre scribed for such establishment or class of estatllishr nents

¶44

r2) Thr: period of work on each day shall be so fixed trat n c period shall exr:et:d tlree hours and that no child shall work for more thitn three hours br:fc-e i er has had an interval for rest for at least one h0ur

¶45

(3) Th(r period of work of a child shall be so arranged that ilclusive of his inte-val fcr rest, under sub-section (2), it shall not be spre al-oi'6r

t I I I I i

,i I

NIR,/ Crl.P.No.l 1 81 5 of 2024

¶50

more than six hours, including the time spent in waiting for work on any day.

¶51

(4) No child shall be permitted or required to work between 7 p.m. and 8 a.m.

¶52

(5) No child shall be required or permifted to work overtime.

¶53

(6) No child shall be required or permitted to work in any establishment on any day on which he has already been working in another establishment.

¶54

Weekly holidays.-Every child employed in an establishment shall be allowed in each week, a holiday of one whole day, which day shall be specified by the occupier in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the establishment and the day so specified shall not be altered by the occupier more than once in three months.

¶55

Penalties.-(1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both.

¶56

(2) 'Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under section 3, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years.

¶57

(3) Whoever-

¶58

(a) fails to give notice as required by section 9; or (b) fails to maintain a register as required by section 11 or makes any false entry in any such register; or

¶59

¶60

(d) fails to comply with or contravenes any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.,'

¶61

NIRJ

¶62

¶63

1 , l, \r,.t /Ut5 oJ 202t

¶64

I I t I I I

¶65

"Section ,l lii defines "child" means a person who has not coml:leted his fourteent'r ,(err of age or such age as may be specified ir the Right of Children tc^:Tee and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 )f 2009), whichever !;^'lore,"

¶66

The ch;:rqe^.sheet filed by the prosecution reveal s thi,rt the fifteen children, ideinlifie cl as victims and witnesses, who were llund at the establishmelt \v-.re aged between 14 and 17 years a' the time of the alleged incidernt lt is a matter of common understandin(: that, upon completion rtf a 1liven year, an individual is considered to have attained that age. Acccrrcirgly, it is evident from the charge-shee- thai all the said children had crnr tleted 14 years of age.

¶67

ln light r:f tltr-. above, the applicability of Sections 3,7, and 8 of the Child Labour^{'P"olribition} and Regulation) Act, 1986, beconres doubtful. As a corollary. tt-e^, imposition of penalties under Section 14 of the said Act would also not a'ise.

¶68

11 . Furthern'ron-, with respect to the allegation under S,:ctic,n 374 of the lndian Penal^()ori:. 1860 (UnlaMul Compulsory Labour), it is pertinent to note that nor'te, c,f ihe children or victims have statecl, in the r respective testimonies, tl-ra1 the petitioner/accused compelled thern tc engage in labour against tir.rr will. A plain reading of the statements ,ecorded by the prosecutic,n rjoes not disclose any indication tf r;oercion or compulsion bry^t:he tetitioner.

¶69

¶70

I l I l I I I

¶71

NIR,/ Cr/.P.No.l 1815 o[2021

¶72

ln the absence of any material to suggest that the children were subjected to forced labour by the petitioner, the prosecution of the accused under Section 374 IPC appears to be unsustainable. ln such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶73

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 875 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, are hereby quashed.

¶74

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶75

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/I

SECTION OFFICER

To,