Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, J.
Jeewan Lakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Shrikant Baldi - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 93 of 2014 with Cr. MMO No. 94 of 2014
Decided On : 08-10-2018
Abuse of Process of Court - Criminal Proceedings - Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 - Section 10(2) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, Section 21 of the Maternity Benefits Act - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed complaints under section 10(2) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Section 21 of the Maternity Benefits Act alleging non-payment of due wages/maternity benefits by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) during her employment from 1.6.1991 to 8.10.2001. The complaints were dismissed, and the respondent subsequently filed complaints against the petitioner under Sections 500 and 211 IPC, alleging false and baseless allegations causing humiliation and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaints filed by the respondent were vague and lacked specific allegations against the petitioner. It also noted that the complaints were filed after a significant delay, exceeding the statutory limitation period.
Issues: The issues involved were the abuse of process of the court, the validity of the summoning orders, and the applicability of the limitation period for criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the summoning orders were issued without proper examination of the complaints and material, and that the proceedings initiated by the respondent were barred by limitation as prescribed under section 468 CrPC, 1973.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the summoning orders and entire proceedings under Sections 500/211 IPC, allowing both the petitions and disposing of pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Since in both the above captioned petitions, parties are same and question of law involved is also similar, as such, same are being taken up together for disposal vide this common judgment.
2. Present petitions are directed against orders dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in case No. 105-2 of 211 (CrMMO No. 93 of 2014) and case No. 104- 2 of 11 (CrMMO No. 94 of 2014) both titled as Dr. Shrikant Baldi v. Ms. Jeevan Laxmi Kukreja, whereby learned Court below taking cognizance of the complaints under Sections 500 and 211 IPC having been filed by the respondent issued process against the petitioner directing her to remain present in the court on 5.5.2014.
3. For having a bird''s eye view, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner filed two complaints under section 10(2) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Section 21 of the Maternity Benefits Act alleging therein that she was not paid due and admissible wages/maternity benefits, while she worked with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter, ''HRTC'') with effect from 1.6.1991 to 8.10.2001. Allegedly, complainant was posted as a Computer Operator with the HRTC with effect from 1.6.1991, vide appointment letter dated 30.5.1991 and she rendered her services in this capacity till 8.10.1991 but since she was not paid her admissible dues/maternity benefits, she filed two complaints as referred herein above arraying therein following persons as respondents-accused:
Complaint under section 10(2) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (Criminal Case No. 114/3 of 2010/02
1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
2. Mr. T.G. Negi, the then, Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
3. Mr.P.K.Mahajan, Deputy General Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
4. Mr.Raghubir Chowdhary, Deputy Divisional Manager (Computer), Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
Complaint under section 21 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Criminal Case No. 115/3 of 2010/02
1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
2. Mr. T.G. Negi, the then, Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
3. Mr. Daljeet Singh Dogra, Managing Director (Presetn) Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
4. Mr.P.K.Mahajan,(Admn) Deputy General Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
5. Mr.Raghubir Chowdhary, Deputy Divisional Manager (Computer), Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Shimla, H.P.
4. If the contents of the complaints having been filed by the petitioner are perused, there are no specific allegations, if any, by name, against any of the respondents-accused arrayed in the same, rather, complainant in the complaints has alleged that despite her having made several representations to the respondents-accused, she was not paid salary qua the work rendered by her in the capacity of a Computer Operator. It is a matter of record that the aforesaid complaints having been filed by the petitioner were dismissed vide judgments dated 8.3.2011 and 1.4.2011 (Annexure P-5, in both the petitions) and aforesaid judgments have attained finality.
5. After passing of aforesaid judgments in the complaint, as have been taken note hereinabove, present respondent filed two complaints under Sections 500 and 211 IPC i.e. Case No. 105-2 of 2011 and Case No. 104-2 of 2011 (Annexure P- 2, in both the petitions), against the petitioner, praying therein to summon, try and convict the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Sections 500 and 211 IPC. Respondent alleged that due to false and baseless allegations made by the petitioner in her complaints, he not only felt humiliated but such humiliation was brought to the public domain and
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
