Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 917
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.
Premkumar Ratanlal Dangar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed By Subordinate Court) No. 296 of 2020
Decided On : 21-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR JEET Y RAJYAGURU
For the Respondent: MR RC KAKKAD, MR ROHAN RAVAL
Revisional courts should not re-appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact in criminal complaints unless they are perverse. Civil employment and wage disputes cannot be transformed into criminal cases without substantive evidence of specific criminal intent or statutory violations.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Purpose is to examine correctness, legality, or propriety of orders - Court in revision should not re-appreciate facts or substitute findings unless the order is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error - An order should not be interfered with simply because another view is possible. (Paras 8.0, 8.1)
(B) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 374, 420, and 166 - Civil disputes - Conversion into criminal proceedings - Disputes concerning wages and employment terms under labor legislation cannot be converted into criminal cases by alleging offenses like cheating or disobedience of law without evidence of criminal intent or specific legal violation - Such attempts are treated as an abuse of the court process. (Paras 7.0, 7.1)
(C) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3 - Offense of forced labor - Merely belonging to a protected community does not establish offense under the Act - Requires clear evidence of forced labor or bonded labor beyond standard employment duties - Absence of such evidence justifies dismissal of complaint. (Paras 6.1, 6.2)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed by a labor union representative against municipal officials alleging that daily wage employees from a marginalized community were denied minimum wages and subjected to unfair labor practices. The complainant sought action for alleged forced labor, cheating, and atrocities. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the dispute regarding wages was civil in nature and that no criminal offense was made out. The current revision application challenges this dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations, even if true, pointed towards a breach of labor laws which have a separate statutory mechanism for resolution. The court noted that no evidence was provided to suggest that the employees were subjected to bondage or forced labor as contemplated under special criminal legislation. Furthermore, the court held that the absence of dishonest intent or criminal negligence regarding the employment actions meant there was no merit in invoking criminal provisions.
Issues: The central issues were whether a routine labor dispute regarding wages could be prosecuted as criminal offenses and whether the trial court’s dismissal of a private complaint on findings of fact warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting patent legal errors and that factual findings of a lower court should not be disturbed unless they are perverse. It further concluded that criminal law should not be used as a tool to arm-twist employers in civil disputes, and that the failure to satisfy specific statutory requirements for criminal offenses prevents the invocation of such laws.
Result: Revision application dismissed and rule discharged.
JUDGMENT :
RULE. Learned APP and learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, present application is taken up for final hearing.
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned 5th (Ad-hoc) Additional District & Special Judge, Gir Somnath at Veraval in Criminal Inquiry Case No.1/2019, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the private complaint filed by the applicant against respondent Nos.2 to 5 – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 420, 166 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) as well as Sections 3(1)(h), 3(2)(vii) and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “Atrocity Act”).
[2.0] The brief facts of the case are as follows:
[2.1] It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is the President of Akhil Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (for short hereinafter referred to as “Union”), a union registered under applicable laws and the applicant is representing the cause of members of the said Union who essentially belong to Schedule Cast and are working under respondent Nos.2 to 5. The SC members of applicant Union are working under respondent Nos.2 to 5 in Class-IV cadre since about 20 to 25 years uninterruptedly and the work done by SC members of Union is permanent and perennial in nature. However, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are neither giving them any benefits of long services nor paying the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. It is thus the case of the applicant that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are exploiting them since last 20 to 25 years. It is further the case that denying the minimum wages to an employee is as good as forced labour work as contemplated under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
[2.2] It is also the case that respondent Nos.2 to 5 unlawfully compelled the SC members of Union to work compulsorily against their will, which amounts to an offence punishable under Section 374 of IPC. It is also alleged that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 dishonestly induced the SC members of Union to regularize their services, pay adequate salary and other benefits of a regular employee however, even though the SC/ST members of Union are working under respondent Nos.2 to 5 for about 20-25 years, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 have fraudulently neither given any benefits to their services nor paid the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act and on the contrary have exploited them for all these years and thus respondent Nos.2 to 5 have deceived/cheated the SC members of Union and thus have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are public servants, who have knowingly disobeyed the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Disputes Act and practiced unfair labour on the SC/ST members of Union and thereby have caused injury to the SC/ST members of Union which act amounts to commission of offence punishable under Sections 166 and 114 of the IPC.
[2.3] It is further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe though they made the SC/ST members of Union to do forced labour and begging work, other than compulsory service, which act on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 5 amounts to an offence under Section 3(1)(h) of the Atrocity Act. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 being Chief Officer, President, Member of Talala Nagar Palika and Sanitary Supervisor are public servants and yet, they have neglected their duties required to be performed by them under the law, which amounts to an offence under Section 4 of the Atrocity Act.
[2.4] Therefore, the applicant – Union on 04.01 2019, approached
