Ndm 1 appln.4594.02.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4594 OF 2002 Mr. B.N. Doshi. ... APPLICANT Vs. MR. R.K. Mhatre and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr. Shrish Gupte, Senior Counsel, i/b Subodh Desai for Applicant. Mrs. Lata Desai i/b Mrs. Pallavi Dadvi for Respondent No.1. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. -------------- CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 25 rd September, 2009. P.C. 1 This application is filed by original accused No.4 involved in Criminal Case bearing C.C. No. 183 / S of 1998 instituted as private complaint case alleging that the accused Nos. 1 to 4, named therein Ndm 2 appln.4594.02.sxw committed breach of clause (14) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guard (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981 read with Section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guard (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act. In his complaint, the respondent alleged that all the accused were engaging the private security guards through the exempted agencies. Therefore, they were accountable to answer the criminal charge. 2 Section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guard (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 makes breach of provisions of the scheme punishable. The scheme drawn in this context purport to show that under Clause 14 every employer who had engaged private Security Guards on the appointed day or at any time thereafter, is required to get himself registered with the Board. In short, the averments in the complaint are that the accused persons including the applicant, though employed certain private guards yet failed to register them with the Board. Ndm 3 appln.4594.02.sxw 3 The applicant filed an application seeking discharge from the criminal case on the ground that he is not the employer of the private guards and has nothing to do with the original accused No.1 – Company. He alongwith other accused persons filed another application for the purposes of quashing the complaint. Both the applications were rejected by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by separate orders dated 19.09.2000. 4 The applicant preferred criminal revision application to the court of Sessions for Brihanmumbai vide Revision Application No. 734 of 2000 whereby he challenged the order passed on discharge application fled by himself and the original accused Nos. 2 and 3. 5 The Revisional Court dismissed the Criminal Application No. 734 of 2000. 6 It is pertinent to notice that the applicant did not challenge the order rendered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on his application for quashing of the proceedings. Ndm 4 appln.4594.02.sxw 7 The case of the applicant is that he is not employer and has no concern with the original accused No.1. He alleges that he is on the Board of Directors and is as an Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Affairs) of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. He alleged that the Mahindra Reality and Infrastructure Developers Limited is a subsidiary company of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. He contended that the subsidiary company (MRIDL) was dealing in constructions activity. The respondent No.1 visited the premises of the MRIDL. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9 Mr. Shrish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel, argued that the applicant is not shown to be concerned with the original accused No.1 – company and therefore, the proceedings are required to be quashed. I regret the argument of Mr. Shrish Gupte is unacceptable. Herein, whether the accused No.1 is the subsidiary company of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and whether the applicant is totally unconcerned with the accused No.1 – company are the questions of facts. The applicant Ndm 5 appln.4594.02.sxw has not produced anything on record to show that he is absolutely unconcerned with the original accused No.1 – company. It is true that in the complaint there is no specific role attributed to the applicant. However, the complaint is based on inspection carried out by the respondent No.1. He gathered information during the course of inspection. The inspection report of the respondent No.1 is basis for the complaint. The respondent No.1 had no business to name the applicant as one of the accused unless there was material information made available during the course of his visit. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the applicant did not produce on record the relevant documents to show that he is not concerned with the accused No.1. It appears that the applicant only relied on affidavit of co-accused by name. Vinod, who represented himself as legal manager of Mahindra Reality and Infrastructure Developers Limited. The applicant did not file any authentic record. 10 The statement of co-accused cannot be used as a plank for seeking quashing of the proceedings. It is well settled that mere defence Ndm 6 appln.4594.02.sxw is not sufficient as basis for the purposes of quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The relief under Section 482 is of discretionary nature. The remedy is available under extraordinary circumstances, in order to avoid abuse of the process of the Court. It does not appear that the criminal complaint is out come of any oblique intention. Considering these reasons, the application is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J ]