DR M P VIJAYAKUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2641 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2646 OF 2024


IN CRL.P No. 2641/2024

BETWEEN:

1. DR. M.P VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O SRI PALANISWAMY
AGED 76 YEARS
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

RESIDING AT :
8, KUTTIYANDI STREET
KOTTUR MALAYANDIPATNAM
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-642 114

2. SRI. T. GOWDER GUNDAN
S/O THATHA GOWDER
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

RESIDING AT:
ROBROY ESTATE,
KOTAGIRI,







Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



THE NILGIRIS,
TAMIL NADU-643 217

3. SRI. A.K PERUMALASWAMY
S/O KARUPPA GOUNDER
AGED 84 YEARS
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

RESIDING AT:
SIVIYAR PALAYAM,
KOMARAPALAYAM POST
SATYAMANGALAM TALUK
TAMIL NADU-638 503

4. DR RADHA RAMANI
W/O DR RAMANI
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

RESIDING AT:
A4, 153, PONNURANGAM ROAD WEST
R.S PURAM, COIMBATORE
TAMIL NADU-641 002
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.C.K. NANDA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE LABOUR INSPECTOR
NANJANGUD CIRCLE,
NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD,
KUVEMPUR NAGAR
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 023
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-01
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1250/2023 (PCR.NO.418/2023) ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NANJANAGUD FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 22(4), 23 AND 30 OF THE RULE AND SEC.
18 OF THE ACT INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2023
TAKING COGNIZANCE U/S 190(1)(a) OF CR.P.C. AND U/S
22(b) OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT SUCH ORDER BEING A PART
OF ANNEXURE-B ORDER SHEET (ANNEXURE-A AND B) AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

IN CRL.P NO. 2646/2024

BETWEEN:

1. M/S BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.1212, TRICHY ROAD
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641 018
HAVING ITS SUGAR FACTORY AT
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE
NANJANAGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMPANY SECRETARY

ALSO AT:
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE
NANJANAGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

2. SRI. S.V BALASUBRAMANIAM
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
S/O A VEDANAYAGA GOUNDER

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



ALAGANCHI VILLAGE
NANJANAGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

RESIDING AT
NO.32, RUKMANI NAGAR, TRICHY ROAD,
RAMANATHAPURAM,
COIMBATORE
TAMIL NADU-641 045

3. B SARAVANAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O S.V BALASUBRAMANIAM
ALAGANCHI VILLAGE
NANJANAGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT

RESIDING AT:
NO.1, RUKMANI NAGAR,
TRICHY ROAD,
RAMANATHAPURAM COIMBATORE
TAMIL NADU-641 045
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
NANJANGUD CIRCLE
NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 023
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-01
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP)

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024




THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.1250/2023 (PCR NOK.418/2023) ON THE FILE
OF THE HON'BLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
NANJANGUDU INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2023
TAKING COGNIZANCE U/S 190(1)(a) OF CR.P.C AND U/S
22(b) OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 SUCH ORDER BEING
A PART OF ANNEXURE-B ORDER SHEET (ANNEXURE A AND
B), AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER
These two petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused
Nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No.1250/2023 (arising out of PCR
No.418/2023), for the offences punishable under Sections 22B
of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act, 1948'),
presently pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Nanjanagud (for short, 'the learned Magistrate').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
lodged a private complaint before the learned Magistrate
against the petitioners in both the petitions, alleging that the
petitioners in Crl.Pet.No.2641/2024, being independent

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



directors of M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Nanjangud, had
violated Rule 22(4) of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 (for
short, ‘the Rules, 1958’), along with Rules 23 and 30 of the said
Rules, Section 18(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for
short, ‘the Act, 1948’), read with Rules 28(2), 29(1), 29(5),
29A and 29B(1) of the Rules, 1958, and Section 18(3) of the
Act, 1948, read with Rules 29(2) and 29B(1) of the Rules,
1958. It was further alleged that the petitioners had committed
the aforesaid violations despite the respondent issuing a show-
cause notice to them on 13.07.2023.
3. On the strength of the private complaint, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and
issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same,
accused Nos.3 to 6 have preferred Crl.P.No.2641/2024,
whereas accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 have preferred
Crl.P.No.2646/2024.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
and learned HCGP in both the petitions.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



5. The primary contention of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions is that the
respondent-authority erred in filing the private complaint
despite the petitioners having issued a reply dated 01.08.2023
to the show-cause notice, denying the alleged violations. He
further contended that no inquiry under Section 202 of the
Cr.P.C. was conducted.
6. He further contended that the petitioners in
Crl.P.No.2641/2024 being the independent directors of the
aforesaid company, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of
the alleged offences without specifying their individual roles or
verifying their addresses. Hence, the order taking cognizance
reflects non-application of judicious mind. He further contended
that the respondent had invoked the wrong provisions of law,
as there was no violation of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1958, and the
allegations in the complaint primarily relate to the alleged
failure to properly maintain the register. In such circumstances,
the invocation of the said provisions is erroneous, and the
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly,
he sought to allow the petitions.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the prayer of the
petitioners, contending that the respondent, being the Labour
Inspector, is authorised to file a private complaint under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 22-B of the Act,
1948, for contravention of Section 22-A of the Act, 1948,
without obtaining separate sanction. He further contended that
the allegations in the private complaint disclose violations of
Rule 22(4), 23 and 30 of the Rules, 1958, Section 18(1) of the
Act, 1948, read with Rules 28(2), 29(1), 29(5), 29A and 29B(1)
of the Rules, 1958, and Section 18(3) of the Act, 1948, read
with Rules 29(2) and 29B(1) of the Rules, 1958. Considering
the allegations made in the complaint, the learned Magistrate
has rightly taken cognizance of the alleged offences. Hence, the
proceedings do not warrant interference. Accordingly, he prays
to dismiss the petitions.
8. I have given my anxious consultation to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



parties and perused the private complaint and other materials
placed before this Court.
9. As could be gathered from the records, the
respondent-authority initially issued a show-cause notice dated
13.07.2023 to the petitioners, who are independent directors
and other directors of the aforesaid company. In response, the
company submitted a detailed reply dated 01.08.2023, which
was duly received by the respondent.
10. Learned HCGP contended that the reply did not
contain complete particulars in response to the show-cause
notice issued by the respondent-authority. Admittedly,
however, after receiving the said reply, the respondent neither
sought any further clarification nor initiated any subsequent
action in that regard. Instead, the respondent proceeded to
institute the case by filing a private complaint against the
petitioners.
11. A perusal of the private complaint reveals that there
is no specific allegation that the petitioners have violated
Section 22 of the Act, 1948. On the contrary, the respondent

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



sought action against the petitioners for violation of Section 22-
B of the Act, 1948. The learned Magistrate, in turn, took
cognizance of the alleged offence and observed that the
petitioners were liable for punishment under Section 22-B of
the Act, 1948. However, Section 22-B is not a penal provision
prescribing punishment for the alleged violation. The
respondent ought to have sought action against the petitioners
under Section 22-A of the Act, 1948, instead of Section 22-B.
The learned Magistrate, without examining this fundamental
aspect, proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offence.
This clearly indicates non-application of judicious mind while
passing the impugned order.
12. The other contention raised by the petitioners in
Crl.P.No.2641/2024 is that, on a careful perusal of the private
complaint and the other materials, it is evident that they are
independent directors of the company and residents of Tamil
Nadu. However, the learned Magistrate issued summons
without complying with the requirements of Section 202 of the
Cr.P.C. This omission constitutes an additional ground
warranting interference with the impugned order.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57652
CRL.P No. 2641 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2646 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010152082024



13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the
considered view that, the impugned order of taking cognizance
is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
allowed
i. The petitions are .

ii. For the above forgoing reasons the
petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 7 in
C.C.No.1250/2023 (arising out of PCR
No.418/2023), for the offences punishable
under Sections 22B of Minimum Wages Act,
1948 (for short, 'the Act, 1948'), presently
pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Nanjanagud is hereby quashed.

iii. However, the respondent is at liberty to
take appropriate action, if required.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE


CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12