The Allahabad High Court today has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Wipro Chairman Azim Premji in a labour law complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, observing that criminal liability cannot be imposed mechanically merely because a person holds a high corporate designation.
The case arose from an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint proceedings and the summoning order dated February 8, 2017, in State v. Azim Premji and Another. The applicant argued that he had no role in the day-to-day functioning of the Lucknow office and security services at the establishment had already been outsourced to G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., which was independently responsible for labour law compliance relating to its employees.
It was further submitted that there were no specific allegations demonstrating active involvement, criminal intent, or statutory vicarious liability on the part of Azim Premji. The applicant also relied on an earlier coordinate bench decision passed on similar facts, where proceedings had already been quashed. Allowing the petition, Justice Zafeer Ahmad reiterated:
“Criminal liability cannot be fastened in a mechanical manner merely on the basis of designation unless the statute specifically provides for vicarious liability or there exist specific allegations demonstrating active role and responsibility of the accused in commission of the alleged offence.”
The Court noted that the complaint contained no specific allegation indicating direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged violation or his active role in the functioning of the Lucknow establishment. It also took note of the outsourcing agreement, showing that compliance obligations rested upon the third-party contractor.
The High Court further found the summoning order passed by the Magistrate to be “wholly cryptic and non-speaking,” observing that it had been issued in a proforma manner without proper discussion of the material on record or satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the alleged offence.
Emphasising that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, the Court reiterated that Magistrates are required to apply a judicial mind before issuing process and the order must reflect satisfaction regarding sufficient grounds to proceed.
Holding that continuation of proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of law, the Court quashed the complaint proceedings and summoning order insofar as they related to Azim Premji.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant- Karunanidhi Yadav, Adv
Counsel for Opposite Party- Govt. Advocate