SRI. N.M. MANJESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The criminal petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
SRI. N.M. MANJESH, S/O. N.R. MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
SRI. N.M. GANESH, S/O. N.R. MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
SRI. N.M. SURESH, S/O. N.R. MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
SRI. N.M. RAMESH, S/O. N.R. MAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PARTNERS OF M/S SRI. MANJUNATH LODGE, NO. 2, 2ND CROSS, P.C. MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, 7TH CIRCLE, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BENGALURU DAIRY CIRCLE, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13428 CRL.P No. 9289 of 2017 BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE PROCESS PASSED BY THE LEARNED III MMTC, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.12917/2016 DATED 11.11.2016 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) (b) (c) Call for the entire records in CC No.12917/2016 on the file of on the file of III MMTC, Bengaluru City, after perusal be pleased to set aside the order of cognizance and issue process passed by the learned III MMTC, Bengaluru City in CC No.12917/2016 dated 11.11.2016, consequently quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners for III MMTC Bengaluru C.C. 12917/16 for violation of the alleged provisions of U/S 18 Rule 29(2), Rule 30 and Rule 23 of Minimum Wages Act 1948,
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 11.11.2016 taken by the III MMTC Bengaluru City in C.C.No.12917/2016 which reads as under: "ORDER Perused the complaint and its enclosures. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13428 CRL.P No. 9289 of 2017 Cognizance for the violation of Sec.18 and R.29(2), R30a, R23 of Minimum Wages Act 1948. Register the case, Issue summons to accused returnable by: 10.12.2016. MMTC-3, Bangalore"
Operative part
3. A perusal of the above would indicate that the said Court has not applied its mind to the aspect as to whether the factum of the offences alleged to have been committed or not. A mechanical order having been passed, the same is not sustainable in view of the decision passed by this Court dated 10.08.2017 in W.P.No.36037-36039/2017. Hence, I pass the following: i) ii) ::ORDER:: The criminal petition is allowed. The dated 11.11.2016 passed C.C.No.12917/2016 by the III MMTC, Bengaluru taking cognizance and issuance of summons is set aside. iii) The matter is remitted to III MMTC, Bengaluru for fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders after applying its mind in accordance with law. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13428 CRL.P No. 9289 of 2017 iv) In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE GJM List No.: 1
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The criminal petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — s. 18.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 11 Nov 2016. The bench was SURA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.