1 2025:CGHC:10243 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 766 of 2025 Hemesh Gandhi S/o Late Shri P.C. Gandhi Aged About 45 Years R/o Vikash Nagar, Kondagaon, Police Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus B.S Bariha( Inspector / Labour Officer Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon At Present As- sistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Commissioner Office, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondent : None --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. This present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 09/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh(Annexure P/1) arising out of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in an unregistered complaint case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Annexure P/2). 2. The case in nutshell is such that respondent filed a case against the petitioner on 30.12.2013 alleging violation of Section 13 and 18 Rule 22(4) 27(2), 28, 29 (A) and 29(5) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Jagdalpur. On 24.02.2014 the petitioner received summons in the aforesaid case and accordingly the petitioner through his counsel appeared before the JMFC, Jagdalpur on 27.03.2014. On 26.05.2016 the learned JMFC, Jagdalpur sent the petitioner in custody. The copy of the charge sheet was not supplied to the petitioner by the respondent therefore, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act for supply of those documents, upon which vide letter dated 06.06.2016 the respondent supplied the copy of the notice dated 29.10.2013 to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed first appeal, which was allowed by the first appellate authority by order dated 12.07.2016. vide order dated 24.08.2017 the learned JMFC, Labour Court, Jagdalpur acquitted the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon for the offence under Section 182, 193, 196, 198, 211, 218, 219, 465,469,471 and 500 of IPC. On 28.11.2023 the learned trial court dismissed the said complaint case. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon and vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024 the learned revision court affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court are bad in law, perverse and erroneous. He submitted that the copy of the charge sheet was not supplied to the petitioner due to which he was unable to defend himself in the said prosecution. Both the learned courts have failed to 3 appreciate that due to false and concoted prosecution initiated by the respondent against the petitioner, therefore petitioner has lost his dignity and reputation in the society and the petitioner is suffering from mental as well as financial losses. Hence he pleads to set aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 and further be pleased to remand the complaint case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon for registration of complaint case and further proceedings in complaint case filed by the petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. Vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon , the complaint case filed under section 200 of the Cr.P.C by the petitioner against the respondent authority was dismissed stating that there is no evidence which could clearly reveal from the complaint or from the available evidence that the respondent had intentionally presented the case before the Judicial Magistrate First class, Labour court Jagdalpur. It was also observed by the concerned trial court in its order that the respondent being a Govt. servant and serving on the post of Labour Officer, he presented the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First class, Jagdalpur against the petitioner in violation of the Section 13 and 18 Rule 22(4), 27(2), 28,29(A) and 29(5) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, therefore, it could not be said that the respondent with the intention of defaming the petitioner has filed the case in violation of the aforementioned provisions. 5. Also the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 has affirmed the order and further observed that Section 22(B) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides the respondent who is a govt. servant to 4 present the charge sheet before the Labour Court if he found somebody in violation of the provisions of the Act, therefore, it could not be said that the respondent had filed the charge sheet to harass or to hamper the reputation of the petitioner. It is further observed that while presenting the case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner had not obtained any sanction as provided under Section 197(1)(B) of the CrPC against the respondent who is a govt. employee in such circumstances also the case of the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record this court is of the considered opinion that both the courts have rightly dismissed the complaint case filed under Section 200 of the CrPc by the petitioner against the respondent as the respondent herein is on the post of labour officer and he was only performing his duties and he has acted accordingly, therefore it could not be said that the act of the respondent had caused any harm to the reputation of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant crmp stands dismissed being devoid of merits. 8. No order as to cost(s). sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge