Bihar HC Calls Worker’s Assault Complaint Against Employers Malicious, Quashes Cognizance After Their Earlier Fraud Case Against Him

The complainant alleged that he worked for the petitioners’ cement business from 2013 to 2015 for monthly remuneration of Rs. 4,500, but received only Rs. 1,500 per month.

He claimed that, when he sought the alleged arrears, the petitioners abused and assaulted him, wrongfully confined him, took property, and threatened him with a pistol.

The Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 342, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Complaint Case No. 1521 of 2016.

The petitioners sought to quash that order, contending that the complaint was malicious and arose from an employment-related dues dispute.

They also relied on an earlier criminal case they had filed against the complainant and his application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for payment of dues.

The High Court quashed the cognizance order.

The complaint alleged offences under Sections 323, 342, 379 and 504 IPC.

The Court considered State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, relied on by the petitioners for the principles permitting quashing where criminal proceedings fall within the recognised categories of abuse of process, including malicious institution.

It also considered Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, for the principle that a summoning or cognizance order must reflect judicial application of mind to whether a prima facie case exists.

The Court considered that the petitioners had filed a criminal case against the complainant before the present complaint, and that the complainant had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner concerning his alleged dues.

In the circumstances, it regarded the prosecution as malicious and, applying the principles invoked from Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods, concluded that the cognizance order should not stand.

The application was allowed.