The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner for lack of evidence of employing a minor, ruling that continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner to quash and set aside the criminal complaint / FIR being C.R. No. II-276 of 2013 registered with Fatehgunj Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000 as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavati assisted by learned advocates Ms. Shivangi Rana, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Mr. H.D. Vasavada for the applicants and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent–State. Though served, none appeared for and on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3. Perused the record.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. Respondent No.2 herein – original complainant has lodged the impugned FIR alleging inter alia that on the day of surprise inspection of the Company of the petitioner, it was found that one girl, who was found to be minor was working in the Company of the petitioner at the relevant time and, therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000 as it was found that child labourer was working in the company of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned complaint/FIR, the petitioner – original accused has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. I. Nanavati for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR. The petitioner is the Director of the company namely; M/s. Alembic Limited and the said Company entered into a contract with M/s. Canter Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for plumbing work of proposed project at Samsar, Vadodara and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, laborers were to be appointed by the said Company. He has further submitted that not a single ingredient of the offences is made out against the applicant and, therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant would be abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is requested to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/ FIR. The contention which has been raised by the learned Senior Advocate that even the statement of the father was recorded on the same date of event i.e. on 10.5.2013 and the father of the child has also revealed the fact that the child was never engaged by Company and it is Directors for the labour work and an afÏdavit dated 8.7.2013 also reiterates the said fact and further stated in afÏdavit that while playing, his daughter, put the pot on her head and at that moment, some photographs were taken whereby the present petitioner as well as accused No.2 were arraigned in the FIR. Even the Care Taker of the children of the laborers also reiterates the fact that the child was never engaged in the work of labour and was never employed by the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following decision: * Virendra K Malik – Partner of Milak Plastic Industries v. State of Gujarat , a decision dated 8.9.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.584 of 2011

7. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State has vehemently submitted that pursuant to the impugned FIR, charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate and Criminal Case No.37430 of 2013 dated 5.8.2013 has been registered wherein the present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused. It is further submitted that from the complaint dated 10.5.2013 it could be prima facie seen tha