Criminal Petition No. 8843 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad.

The allegation in the complaint is that M/s. Bata India Limited is a retail outlet and the same was inspected by the complainant and found that the petitioner - accused failed to comply with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) which reads as under: 1) failed to close the shop on Sunday i.e., on 16.12.2007 at 2:10 PM which is a paid Holiday and found the accused transacting the business. 2) Rule 29 (3) failed to exhibit the name board of the shop and establishments in Telugu on top of other languages.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not present when the complainant found opening of the shop on Sunday; that the petitioner was the Personnel Officer, who was stationed at Bangalore retail Office; and that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that since the shop is in the name of the petitioner, he is responsible for control over functioning of the shop i.e., opening and closing of the shop and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked or exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice or to carry out orders passed under the Code. The allegation in the complaint is that Sunday being a paid Holiday, the petitioner’s shop was opened when the complainant inspected the same on 16.12.2007 at 2:10 PM and the petitioner also failed to exhibit the name board of the shop in Telugu. Whether the petitioner was present or not makes no difference because the shop stands in his name and he is having control and management over functioning of the shop. Whether the petitioner was discharging his duties from Bangalore office or at Hyderabad office, is a question of fact and therefore, the said question of fact cannot be resolved exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.