CR.MA/61/1987 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 61 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= OMAX INVESTMENT LTD. & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRABHAV MEHTA FOR M/S NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Applicant(s) : 1-2 MR HL JANI, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date : 11/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Prabhav Mehta for M/s Nanavati Associates and learned APP, Mr.H.L.Jani for the respondent No.1-State. 2. It is required to be noted that the complaint CR.MA/61/1987 2/3 JUDGMENT has been filed against the Company and its office bearers including the Managing Director, Director etc. by the Labour Officer under Sec.25(q) read with Sec.32 for violation of Sec.25(M)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act wherein process has been issued by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 8- 9-1986 but no averments worth the name are made by the applicants in their pleadings. It is prima facie established that before actual process was served upon the applicants, applicants have rushed to the High Court wherein following order has been passed on 10-1-1987 by the Court (Coram: R.J.Shah,J, as His Lordship was then): "Rule to be made returnable on 3/2/87. Mr.Divetia waives service on behalf of No.1. Stay of further proceedings in terms of para 10(b) effective upto 6/2/87." 3. It appears that said stay has been extended from time to time till 31-3-87. However, record does not show any further order having passed to show whether stay was extended or made absolute till final disposal of the matter or not. 4. I have gone through the complaint in question and the ingredients therein. For the purpose of quashing of the complaint, what is required to be seen is whether complaint discloses the prima facie ingredients of offence or not and if it discloses the ingredients of the offence, complaint cannot be quashed. Here in this case, prima facie ingredients of the offence has been CR.MA/61/1987 3/3 JUDGMENT disclosed in the complaint. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a matter requiring trial. 5. It is required to be noted that though process has been issued against all accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 10, petition has been filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 i.e. Company and its Director only. Rest of the accused have not challenged the complaint but they are enjoying the fruit of the stay order. 6. In view of the fact that the complaint discloses the prima facie ingredients of offence alleged against the accused, it requires trial. This petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. Whatever interim relief has been granted by this Court earlier stands vacated forthwith. The applicants are directed to appear before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 11-2-2008. 7. Office to send a copy of this order to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. (R.P.DHOLAKIA,J.) radhan/