Pintu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the applicant was not present at his shop, two persons came to the shop. When he came back to his shop, his cousin brother handed over a letter to the applicant. On asking about the said letter, his cousin brother informed him that two persons had visited the shop and gave this letter to handover the same to the owner of the shop, wherein the allegation of employment of child is levelled. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and a concocted case has been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner before the Labour Court. He also submits that notice was never served upon the applicant and without giving any information and opportunity of hearing, summons have been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that child labourer as mentioned in the complaint, is son of the aunt (mausi) of the applicant.

On the other hand, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I has submitted that after recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 C.P.C. and 2 A482 No. 10429 of 2025 after visiting the shop in question, the complaint has been filed. The trial court has also summoned the applicant after going through the record as well as the statements, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the same.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After going through the record as well as the submissions of the rival parties, I find that the summons have been issued against the applicant after considering the relevant record as well as the statement of the complainant. This Court cannot do mini trial at this stage whether the offence has been committed or not. It also cannot be ascertained as to whether the child labour employed in the shop of the applicant was his cousin brother or not, as these are factual aspect of the matter, which can be gone into during the trial only. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order.

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected. December 9, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.)