M L SHANMUKH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No body appears on behalf of the respondent-complainant even when the matter was called three times earlier. In these circumstances I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. On the complaint of respondent no.3 FIR is registered against the petitioner under Sections 324/326,506(II) IPC read with Section 3(1)(ii), (x) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The gravamen of the charge of the complaint lodged by the complainant was that on termination of the services of the complainant who was working in the Container Corporation of India, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Labour Office (South) of Government of NCT of Delhi. Notice was issued in the said complaint and when he sought to serve the notice to the petitioner who was working as Group General Manager, HRD with the Container Corporation of India, on 28.8.2001, after reading the notice and its contents the petitioner suddenly started abusing the complainant stating that:

(2.) Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed summoning order dated 12.5.2004 and challenging the said summoning order present petition is filed seeking setting aside of the said order. It may be noted at this stage that when the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of respondent no.3, the police had investigated the matter and filed closure report. However, respondent no.3 preferred Protest Petition and taking cognizance thereof, impugned order dated 12.5.2004 is passed. It is stated in this petition that no such incident took place on 28.8.2001 and since the enquiry was in progress on the charge of misconduct after holding departmental enquiry, respondent no.3 lodged false complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is evident that the allegations are false as would be clear from the fact that there is no procedure in the Labour Office to give notice to the complaint for service on the employer. This submission of learned counsel is well founded. When a complaint is filed by a workman in the Labour Office and any date is fixed before the Labour Office in the said complaint for conciliation proceeding or otherwise, normally procedure is to either send the notice to the employer by post or Labour Inspector may serve the notice on the employer. Moreover, the employer in this case was Container Corporation of India and normally the notice goes in the name of employer i.e. Container Corporation of India in this case and, therefore, it would be highly improbable that notice would be served upon the petitioner who was working as Group General Manager (HRD) with Container Corporation of India at that time personally by the complainant. The allegation of the respondent no.3, therefore, to the effect that the petitioner abused him in the manner stated by him in his complaint and as recorded above when he had gone to him to serve copy of the notice issued by Labour Office (South), Government of NCT of Delhi does not inspire confidence.

(3.) In the closure report submitted by the Police which is annexed with this petition, it is, inter alia observed as under: