IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1080 of 2005
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -----------Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ------Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. I.N. Gupta
C.A.V. ON 10.07.2009 Delivered On-17.07.2009
3/ 17/ 07/ 2009 This is an application for quashing of order dated
4.7.2005
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.L.A. Case
No. 262(A)/2005 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the
offence under section 14 of the Child Labour ( Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ ).
2. It appears that an official complaint was filed in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by the Labour
Superintendent, Dhanbad alleging therein that on 25.2.2005 at about
2.20 p.m. the Brick-kiln of the petitioner, namely, M/S. G.K.A. Itta
Bhatta was inspected by the Labour Superintendent as per the
provisions of the Act and found that in the aforesaid Brick-kiln one child
labour, namely, Lalan Manjhi, was present. It is stated that the working
of a child labour in Brick-kiln is contravention of section 3 of the Act. It is
also stated that as per Rules framed under the Act, the register and
notice board was not maintained by the establishment. It is also alleged
that the Labour Inspector was also not given any notice regarding the
employment of child labour. It is stated that after the inspection , show
cause notice was given to the petitioner for removing the defect and
also for production of papers and registers for inspection, but the
petitioner has not complied the direction given in the said show cause
notice and his reply is unsatisfactory. Accordingly the present complaint
was filed in the court of CJM with request to take cognizance of the
offence under section 14 of the Act.
2
3. It appears that learned CJM, Dhanbad vide order dated
4.7.2005 took cognizance of the offence under section 14 of the Act
against that the present application has been filed.
4. It is submitted that in response to the show cause notice
the petitioner filed a show cause, wherein he had stated that the said
child labour, namely, Lalan Manjhi, was not working in his Brick-kiln. It
is stated that the said child labour is the brother-in-law of one Lito
Manjhi, who is working in his Brick-kiln and the said Lalan Manjhi was
residing with him. It is further stated that father of Lalan Manjhi and said
Lito Manjhi had sworn an affidavit that Lalan Manjhi is residing with Lito
Manjhi and not working in brick-kiln. It is also submitted that the said
Lalan Manjhi was a student of Siksha Abhiyan Vidaylaya , Bathanbari,
Nirsa. It is submitted that in proof of aforesaid contention, a certificate
issued by Siksha Mitra of the school and also the result of the said
Lalan Manjhi has been filed for perusal of this Court. It is also
submitted that from the perusal of aforesaid document, it is clear that
the said Lalan Manjhi was not working in the Brick-kiln of the petitioner
and therefore the inspection report of the concerned Labour
Superintendent is against the facts of the case. Accordingly, it is
submitted that in view of the documents submitted by the petitioner, no
offence under section 14 of the Act is made out. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the order taking cognizance is bad.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. opposed the
prayer of petitioner and submits that while exercising the jurisdiction
under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it is not open for this court to make an
enquiry and take into consideration the defence of the accused for
coming to the conclusion that the offence is made out or not. It is
submitted that from the perusal of complaint and prosecution report,
prima-facie an offence under section 14 of the Act is made out.
Therefore, the court has rightly taken cognizance against the accused
petitioner which does not require any interference by this Court.
3
6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the
record of the case. From perusal of the complaint petition, I find that the
Labour Superintendent has inspected the Brick-kiln of the petitioner and
found that a child labour, namely, Lalan Manjhi, was working there. It
further appears that as per the provisions of the Act and Rule, the
petitioner has not maintained the notice board as well as the register. It
is not in dispute that working of a child labour in a Brick-kiln is
prohibited under section 3 of the aforesaid Act. It is stated in the
complaint petition that the show cause filed by the petitioner is not
satisfactory and therefore the present complaint has been filed. After
going through the complaint petition, I find that if allegation made
therein remain un-rebutted then a case under section 14 of the Act is
made out against petitioner.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, to the
effect that affidavit filed by the father and brother-in-law of Lalan
Manjhi and also the certificate given by Siksha Mitra of Siksha Abhiyan
Vidaylaya, Bathanbari, Nirsa show that aforesaid Lalan Manjhi was not
working in the Brick-kiln, can not be accepted at this stage.. It has been
held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in M. Narayan Das V. State of
Karnataka (2003)11SCC251 that
“it is settled law that the power to quash must be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It must
be exercised in the rarest of rare case. It is also settled
law that the court would not be justified in embarking upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR. The Court also cannot
enquire whether the allegation in the complaint are likely
to be established or not”.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by their
Lordships of Supreme Court while exercising power under section 482
of the Cr.P.C., it is not open for this Court to consider defence of
accused and come to the conclusion that no offence is made out. It is
well settled that from the materials, made available by the prosecution,
if the court come to the conclusion that prima facie offence is made
out, then the court is justified in taking cognizance of the offence.
4
9. As noticed above, from the facts stated in the complaint
petition, prima-facie an offence under section 14 of the Act is made out.
Thus, I am of the view that learned C.J.M., Dhanbad had rightly taken
cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner.
Thus in view of the discussion made above, I find no illegality and/or
irregularity in the impugned order.
10. In the result, I find no merit in this application, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 17 / 07 / 2009
Sharda/NAFR