2024 (6) TMI 291 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking quashing of the complaint proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow - doctrine of Vicarious liability - applicant is the Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Ltd. (Company) and has no interest in any shareholdings or managerial control over the M/s G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Limited - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the subsequent bailable warrant issued on 08.02.2017 against the applicant, lacks necessary legal and factual foundation. There appears force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no administrative control over the functioning of G4S, he could not have been summoned for the alleged violation of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 under which the complaint has been preferred by opposite party No.2. Further, on bare reading of complaint dated 26.08.2016, it is apparent that there was no objective material before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to formulate an opinion for issuance of summoning order or even to register the complaint. It is thus, apparent that the registration of the complaint, the issuance of summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the consequential issuance of bailable warrant vide order dated 08.02.2017 had been done in a mechanical manner sans application of mind whereas it has repeatedly been held that prior to the issuance of a summoning order it is imperative for learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to examine the complaint to ensure that the Directors or other senior officers of the company who have been named in the complaint are vicariously liable for the act complained of - As per the settled law, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow could not have issued process to the applicant under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and as such the entire complaint proceedings initiated against the applicant as well as summoning order dated 03.09.2016 and the order dated 08.02.2017 issuing bailable warrant against the applicant are without jurisdiction. Whether the applicant was liable for any offence even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value to be correct in entirety? - HELD THAT - The Company is a body incorporated under the Companies Act. Vicarious criminal liability of its Directors and Shareholders would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. The Statute must contain provision fixing such a vicarious liability. Even for the said purpose, it would be obligatory on the part of the complainant and the investigating agency to make requisite allegations and collect evidence in support thereof which would attract provisions constituting vicarious liability. The applicant's impeccable reputation as an industrialist who upholds the highest standard of corporate governance and his extensive philanthropic contribution should be taken into account. His involvement in the case appears to stem from a misunderstanding or misapplication of legal principles rather than any malafide intent or violation of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The orders issued against him lacks substantive ground, as the applicant has no direct or indirect control over the alleged matter and in light of the applicant's distinguished career and substantial contributions to society, it is evident that the proceedings against him are unfounded and merit reconsideration. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is allowed in respect of the instant applicant, namely-Azim Premji.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of complaint proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Vicarious liability of the applicant.
3. Application of judicial mind by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
4. Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.
5. Involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence.

Summary:

Quashing of Complaint Proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.:
The applicant sought quashing of the complaint proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, and the summoning order dated 03.09.2016 along with the order dated 08.02.2017 issuing a bailable warrant against him. The court found that the summoning order and the subsequent bailable warrant lacked necessary legal and factual foundation, and thus, the proceedings were quashed.

Vicarious Liability of the Applicant:
The applicant, Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Ltd., argued that he had no administrative control over G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., the service provider for security services at Wipro's Lucknow office. The court agreed, noting that the applicant could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged violations by G4S, as there was no direct involvement or control over their operations.

Application of Judicial Mind by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:
The court observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind while issuing the summoning order and the bailable warrant. The summoning order did not mention the content of the challan and was passed mechanically without sufficient material to summon the applicant.

Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.:
The court noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not ensure compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C., which mandates an inquiry when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the court. This non-compliance was a significant ground for quashing the proceedings.

Involvement of the Applicant in the Alleged Offence:
The court found that the applicant had no direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Wipro's Lucknow office or managerial control over G4S. The contractual agreement between Wipro and G4S clearly outlined that the security personnel were independent contractors, not employees or agents of Wipro. The court highlighted the applicant's impeccable reputation and contributions to society, concluding that the proceedings against him were unfounded and an abuse of the process of law.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the complaint proceedings, summoning order, and bailable warrant against the applicant, emphasizing the lack of application of judicial mind and non-compliance with legal provisions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.