The main legal point established is that a complaint can be deemed a case of malicious prosecution if it is retaliatory in nature and lacks merit. Additionally, the involvement of the company as an accused is essential in cases involving alleged offenses by the company.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

2. Both these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.

3. By order dated 13.06.2017 Cr. Revision No.218 of 2017 has been directed to be tagged along with Cr.M.P.No.1153 of 2016.

4. An I.A. being I.A. No.1690 of 2017 in Cr.Rev.No.218/17 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 245 days.

5. In view of the reasons assigned in the criminal revision petition, the same has been accepted the delay of 245 days is hereby condoned.

6. I.A. being I.A. No.1690 of 2017 in Cr.Rev.No.218/17 for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of.

7. In both these petitions, the same cognizance order is under challenge. Since, cognizance has not been taken under section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and that is why, the criminal revision has been preferred by the complainant and the Cr.M.P. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned C.J.M., Saraikela whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners u/s 420/504/506/34 of the I.P.C in connection with P.C.Case No.324/2015, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Saraikela.

8. The complaint case was filed stating therein-

(a) That the complainant namely Guru Charan Nayak filed a complaint petition before the learned C.J.M., Saraikela alleging therein that complainant is the labour supplier in the name and style of G.C. Enterprises, Gamharia of M/s Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd.

(b) That it has further been alleged that the complainant had his ancestral property acquired by AIADA but the complainant was regularly cultivating the land before leasing out the same to the said company and the complainant in lieu of that used to provide labourers being labour supplier;

(c) That it has further been alleged that the complainant was regularly supplying labourers to the company and the company issued a certificate issued by the petitioner no.1 to the complainant;

(d) That it has further been alleged that complainant is the labour supplier vide licence no.328 dated 11.04.2008 issued by the labour superintendent, Saraikela, Kharsawan wherein Principal employer M/s Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd was indicated;

(e) That it has further been alleged that the complainant was given work order by the petitioner no.3, who is the Asst. General Manager (Operations);

(f) That it has further been alleged that as per the order supervisor has to be paid Rs.365/- per day for 8 hours a day but management was taking 12 hours duty from the supervisor and it was orally agreed by the company that the payment for extra work will be paid to the supervisor through the contractor;

(g) That it has further been alleged that on 12.10.2015 the complainant went to the office of the petitioner no.1 to demand the payment for the extra work but the petitioner no.1 asked for the commission but the complainant denied on which the petitioner no.1 agreed and abused the complainant using filthy languages taking caste name of the complainant;

(h) That it has further been alleged that on 13.10.2015 when the complainant went to the factory gate, the complainant was not allowed to enter into the factory premise but the supervisor and the labourers were allowed to work;

(i) That on 19.10.2015 the petitioner no.1 at about 3.30 P.M called the complainant on his phone and asked him to come to the company and the complainant was allowed to enter without gate pass and the petitioner no.3 forced the complainant to sign on a blank paper but the complainant denied to sign on which petitioner no.3 got angry and abused the complainant in filthy language taking caste name; and

(j) That is has further been alleged that on 14.10.2015 petitioner no.3 has told to the