1. Complaint filed for violation of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, punishable under Section 25-R, with cognizance taken by the Magistrate. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 220
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S.Oka, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Amit Mittal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Punjab Government - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6729 of 2019)
Decided On : 22-01-2025
Important Points
The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of CRPC cannot be denied without a statutory bar, and its refusal to entertain a petition must be justified.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-O and Section 25-R - Complaint filed by Labour Inspector alleging violation of the Act - High Court held petition under Section 482 of CRPC not maintainable, directing recourse to Section 397 for revision - Court found High Court's view unjustified as inherent power under Section 482 should be exercised unless a statutory bar exists. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 8)
(B) Quashing of complaint - High Court's discretion to decline petition under Section 482 when no case made out for cognizance - Court restored petition for further directions. (Paras 6, 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, as Labour Inspector, filed a complaint against the appellants for violating Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, leading to cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellants sought to quash the complaint under Section 482 of CRPC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to deny the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 was not justified, and the case was restored for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court correctly denied the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of CRPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of CRPC, which should be exercised unless a statutory bar exists, and the decision to relegate to revision was unjustified.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
(B) Quashing of complaint - High Court's discretion to decline petition under Section 482 when no case made out for cognizance - Court restored petition for further directions. (Paras 6, 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, as Labour Inspector, filed a complaint against the appellants for violating Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, leading to cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellants sought to quash the complaint under Section 482 of CRPC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to deny the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 was not justified, and the case was restored for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court correctly denied the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of CRPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of CRPC, which should be exercised unless a statutory bar exists, and the decision to relegate to revision was unjustified.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Adv., Mr. Yugam Taneja, Adv., Mr. Karun Mehta, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR, Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv., Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Adv., Mr. Yugam Taneja, Adv., Mr. Karun Mehta, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR, Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv., Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC, whereas the High Court held the petition non-maintainable, suggesting a revision application under Section 397 CrPC. (Para 5 )
3. The High Court cannot conclude a Section 482 CrPC petition is non-maintainable absent a statutory bar, especially when the challenge involves facts outside the complaint. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are maintainable unless statutorily barred, particularly when the challenge extends beyond the averments and documents produced with the complaint. (Para 7 )
5. Impugned order set aside and petition restored to the High Court for disposal, with interim orders continuing. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 )
6. Can the High Court refuse to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing a summoning order?
The High Court cannot conclude that a petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable unless there is a statutory bar. However, it may exercise discretion to relegate the petitioner to a revision application if the challenge is based solely on the averments and documents in the complaint. (Para 7 )
7. What is the effect of relying on factual aspects outside the complaint in a Section 482 CrPC petition?
When a petition under Section 482 CrPC relies on factual aspects not part of the complaint or the material produced with it, the High Court is generally justified in entertaining the petition rather than relegating the party to a revision application. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
Application for impleadment is allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel who represents the informant.
4. A complaint was filed by the respondent in his capacity as the Labour Inspector Grade I before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar. The allegation is that the appellants have violated Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "1947 Act") and therefore they have committed offence punishable under Section 25-R of the 1947 Act. Cognizance was taken of the complaint by the learned Magistrate.
5. A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "CRPC") was filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the complaint on various grounds stated therein. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that a petition under Section 482 of the CRPC was not maintainable and the remedy of the appellants was to take recourse to Section 397 of the CRPC by way of a Revision Application for challenging the order issuing process.
6. We have examined the grounds taken in the petition under Section 482 of the CRPC. Apart from the ground taken that no case was made out to take cognizance of the offence, the appellants have relied upon several factual aspects which are not part of the complaint or part of the material produced along with the complaint.
7. The power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CRPC is an inherent power. Unless there is a statutory bar for exercise of that power, the High Court cannot come to a conclusion that a petition under Section 482 of the CRPC was not maintainable. In a given case, where a prayer for quashing summoning order is based only on the ground that the averments made in the complaint and the documents produced with the complaint do not make out a case for taking cognizance, possibly the High Court in its discretion can decline to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the CRPC and relegate the petitioner to the remedy of filing a revision application. But in the facts of the case, considering the challenge in the petition under Section 482 of the CRPC, the view taken by the High Court was not justified.
8. Accordingly, only on that ground, we set aside the impugned order and restore CRM-M No.19079 of 2019 to the file of the High Court of the Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The restored petition shall be listed for directions before the roster Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24th February, 2025 in the morning when the parties represented today shall be under an obligation to appear and no further notice shall be served by the High Court to them.
9. Till the disposal of the restored petition, the interim order passed by this Court on 5th August, 2019 will continue to operate.
10. We make it clear that all questions are left open to be decided by the High Court.
11. The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
