IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cr.Misc. No.25361 of 2000 1. S.S.THAKUR, SON OF SARAD CHANDRA THAKUR, V ICE-PRESIDENT EXCISE, COATS INDIA (DIVISION OF MADURA COATS LIMITED) 144, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. S.C. DHEYANI, SON OF LATE TARA DUTTA DHEYANI, BRANCH MANAGER, COATS INDIA, 2, G.C. ROY CHOUDHARY GHAT ROAD, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH- 711 102. 3. AKSHAY KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE SHRI DAMODAR PRASAD, EXECUTIVE SALES AND ADMINISTRATION COATS INDIA, 13/6 , CIVIL LINES PARMAT, KANPUR- 208 001. 4. SANJAY BHATTACHARYA, SON OF SHRI SANTOSH BHATTACHARYA, TERRITORY SALES INCHARGE (PATNA), COATS INDIA, 2, G.C. ROY CHAUDHARY GHAT ROAD, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH- 711 102. 5. D.K. SINGH, SON OF SHRI SOMESHWAR SINGH, C/O GAYATRI NIWAS OF SRI BAIDYA NATH PANDEY, BUDDHA COLONY, P.S. BUDDHA COLONY, DISTRICT PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAMESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE KAILASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF KAMALA NEHRU NAGAR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT PATNA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** For the petitioners :- Mr. B.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Petitioners are all persons working in Coats India a Division of Madura Coats Limited. Petitioner no. 1 is the Vice- President Excise, Coats India, having his office at Bangalore, petitioner no. 2 is the Branch Manager, Coats India and is resident and posted at Howrah, petitioner no. 3 is the Executive Sales and Administration Officer, Coats India at Kanpur, petitioner no. 4 is 2 the Territory Sales Incharge (Patna), Coats India but has his office and conducts his business from Howrah and petitioner no. 5 was the man who was running the Coats India at Patna. 2. The Coats India decided that it was not viable to have their office running in Patna and, therefore, decided to close the office. 3. The complainant was an employee of Madura Coats Limited and was posted as Despatch Clerk in the Patna office. It is said in the complaint petition that the company intended to close the Patna office and to remove the stocks appliances, materials etc. from Patna suspecting foul play, the employees sat on „Dharna‟ day and night, which led to the alleged incident, in which it is said that at 4 p.m. on 12.7.1998 some unknown persons along with petitioners came to the office and began to remove stocks etc. It is alleged that petitioner no. 1 ordered his associates to beat the complainant and other employees. Uday Kumar Gupta and Vijay Kumar Gupta who are the landlords of the building in which Madura Coats Limited was running, along with five unknown accused persons pointed a gun and petitioner no. 1 got the complainant to sign on a piece of paper. Petitioner no. 5 is said to have snatched a wrist watch of the complainant. Petitioner no. 2 is said to have taken out Rs. 150/- from the pocket of the complainant and the other two accused persons are also said to have snatched Rs. 1,000/- from one Mantu Das. For the aforesaid allegations, the present case has been instituted alleging offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 386 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal 3 Code. 4. The witnesses were examined on S.A. The complainant has made allegations against petitioner no. 5 alleging that he had snatched a watch from the complainant. Petitioner no. 2 is said to have taken out Rs. 150/- from the pocket of the complainant. Petitioner no. 4 is said to have taken Rs. 1,000/- from Mantu Das. It would also be relevant to mention that in the complaint petition, it has been stated that a case was also instituted by the complainant in the Labour Court numbered as Reference Case No. 36 of 1996. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint petition are absolutely false, unbelievable as it cannot be imagined that the Vice-President, Branch Manager, Executive Sales and Administration Officer, Territory Sales Incharge would come to Patna and commit such petty offences as mentioned by the complainant. 6. On perusal of the order of the reference which was decided on 31st of July, 2008, it would appear that the case of the complainant was that the workmen were employed in the Coats India, which has its offices and branches all over India and that during the conciliation proceedings, the case made out on behalf of the workman that it was a „lock-out‟ in the company and not of a „closure‟. No notice was given of closure of the Company not was permission obtained from the authority concerned, to remove all the appliances of the Company from Patna. Since it is not a case of closure of the company, the petitioners could not have 4 been retrenched, and the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated. The reference made by the Court was “Whether the workmen of M/S Coats India Limited were working at Patna branch, are entitled to get full payment on the basis of daily attendance after illegal lock-out by the management since 20.7.1996? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?” The labour Court rejected the pleas raised on behalf of the complainant on the ground that the Court was not entitled to adjudicate on the question whether there was a lock-out or closure as it did not come within the purview of incidental matters which are decided by the labour Court. The entire reference case was dismissed. The judgment and order is contained in Annexure-10 to the Supplementary Affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to several documents such as the notice of closure, the notice of payment of salary and compensation to the workers, the actual payment of the salary to the workmen posted at Patna etc. These documents perhaps cannot be considered by this Court at the present stage. The only facts that may be considered by this Court are the actual allegations made by the complainant. This Court finds it incredible that the Vice-President, Excise, Coats India Limited should travel from Howrah to Patna along with the Branch Manager at Howrah, the Excise Officer posted as Kanpur and the Territory Sales Incharge, Patna posted at Howrah and commit the offences as alleged i.e. snatching of a few hundred of rupees and watch from their erstwhile employees. It is difficult to imagine such a situation where senior officers would be directly 5 involved in a man to man conflict with the employees. If the major part of the case is unbelievable and incredible then it cannot be said that the man who was posted at Patna would have also be present for the purposes of committing the offence or snatching a watch from the complainant. The case seems to have been instituted out of malice towards the senior members of the company who were responsible for closing of the Patna branch and thus responsible also for terminating and disengaging the employees who were working in the branch. This case would fall squarely within the exception 5 and 7 as point by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1992 SUPREME COURT 604, which are “Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and “where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide.” 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court quashes the order dated 18.5.1999, passed in Complaint Case No. 961(C) of 1998, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna as far as it concerns the petitioners. 9. This application is allowed. Patna High Court, The 14th of January, 2011 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)