Marks And Spencer Reliance India Private Limited And 3 ORS v. State Of Goa Through Labour Inspector

2025:BHC-GOA:1820 Jose

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2025

1. MARKS AND SPENCER RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED having Corporate Office at Infinity Tower-C Ground Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II Gurugram, Haryana-122002 through Ms. Joesica Rodrigues, Authorised Signatory aged about 35 years Residing at Porvorim, Goa

2. Mr. Ritesh Mishra, Erstwhile Managing Director MARKS AND SPENCER RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED having Corporate Office at Infinity Tower-C Ground Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II Gurugram, Haryana-122002 represented by Authorised Signatory aged about 48 years Residing at EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Bangalore

3. Ms. Anuja Rustagi, Director MARKS AND SPENCER RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED having Corporate Office at Infinity Tower-C Ground Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase-Il Gurugram, Haryana- 122002 aged about 47 years, Residing at Gurugram,

Haryana

4. Ms. Joesica Rodriques, Store Manager MARKS AND SPENCER RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Shop No.1, 2, & 3, Ground Floor, H.No.603/FF, Commercial Building Mall De Goa, Alto Pilene, Bardez, Goa aged about 35 years Residing at Porvorim, Goa.

... Petitioners.

Versus

1. STATE OF GOA Through Labour Inspector, Govt. Complex Building, Near Fish Market, Mapusa, Goa represented by Shri Nainesh Dessai, Labour Inspector Major of age ... Respondent.

Mr. Girish Sardessai with Ms. Smrati Bangera, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the State.

CORAM:

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

DATED:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.

Registry to waive office objections and register the matter. 2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is disposed of finally.

3.

The present petition is directed against order dated 21.08.2024 by which the Magistrate has issued process against the three Petitioners, Accused in Criminal Case No. LC/6/2024/C before the J.M.F.C., Mapusa.

4.

The prime contention of the Petitioners is that the order of issuance of process is cryptic and does not refer to any of the averments in the complaint or the material before the Magistrate. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Ors., (2015) 12 SCC 420, which reiterates the position of law that whilst taking cognizance of a complaint and issuing summons of process, the concerned Magistrate is required to pass a speaking order.

5.

Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of this Court in Manmohan Singh Thr. Its POA Harsh Vardhan Garg & 3 Ors. v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor & 11 Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No.8/2022.

6.

On a perusal of the impugned order, all that the Magistrate has done is to record "Issue summons" without supplying any reasons for passing the order or even referring to any of the averments made in the complaint. The order is extremely cryptic and flies in the face of the Judgment of this Court rendered in Manmohan Singh (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman (supra).

7.

Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The J.M.F.C., Mapusa in Criminal Case No. LC/6/2024/C shall consider the record of the complaint and shall hear the Accused in proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 223 of the BNSS Correction carried out as per order dated 25.09.2025 sd/- terms of the proviso to Section 200, if applicable. Learned Advocate Shri Sardessai submits that he would appear for the four Accused/Petitioners herein, before the Magistrate on 07.11.2025, when the case has now been listed.

8.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

Signed by: JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 26/09/2025 16:05:22