Judgment : 1. Initiation of prosecution against the petitioner under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) is the subject matter of challenge in the present application, which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The allegations in the charge sheet are as under: One Kunti Sathyam (gumpu mestry), who is arrayed as A1 in the said case is alleged to have advanced an amount of Rs.10,000/- to LWs.1 and 2 with a contract period of one year for attending work at a quarry belonging to the petitioner. The grievance of the labourers appears to be that the owner of the stone crusher machine forced them to plant dynamites for blasting without any safety equipment and training. They were also forced to work without any minimum wages and that the gumpu mestri (A1) is demanding them to return back the advanced amount. The charge sheet further discloses that the gumpu mestri failed to give them the minimum wages, forfeited the freedom of employment and other means of livelihood and also their right to move freely. Since there is a violation of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the present charge sheet came to be filed making gumpu mestri and the petitioner, who is the owner of the said quarry, punishable under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The only point which is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Act will not apply to the petitioner as he never engaged or hired or entered into a contract with the labourers. As there is no agreement between the petitioner and the labourers, he contends that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor after referring to the various provisions of the Act contends that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and this Court cannot interdict the proceedings by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor after referring to the various provisions of the Act contends that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and this Court cannot interdict the proceedings by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) laid down certain guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which are as follows: “In the following categories of cases the power of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of Court of otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (a) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence, and make out a case against the accused; and (c) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 7. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court and, thereunder, nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed even before the enactment of the Code. While exercising power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. While exercising power, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone Court exists. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the power, the Court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the material to assess what the complainant has alleged, and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto (State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa ). 8. In Shiji v. Radhika (2011) 10 SCC 705 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” 9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of the Act which are as under: 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) " advance" means an advance, whether in cash or in kind, or partly in cash or partly in kind, made by one person (hereinafter referred to as the creditor) to another person (hereinafter referred to as the debtor); (b) " agreement" means an agreement (whether written or oral, or partly written and partly oral) between a debtor and crelitor and includes an agreement providing for forced labour, the existence of which is presumed under any social custom prevailing in the concerned locality. Explanation.-- The existence of an agreement between the debtor and creditor is ordinarily presumed, under the social custom, in relation to the following forms of forced labour, namely:-- Adiyamar, Baramasia, Basahya, Bethu, Bhagela, Cherumar, Garru- galu, Hali, Hari, Harwai, Holya, Jana, Jeetha, Kamiya, Khundit- Mundit, Kuthia, Lakhari, Munjhi, Mat, Munish system, Nit- Majoor, Paleru, Padiyal, Pannayilal, Sagri, Sanji, Sanjawat, Sewak, Sewakia, Seri, Vetti; (c) …………. (d) " bonded debt" means an advance obtained, or presumed to have been obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour system; (e) " bonded labour" means any labour or service rendered under the bonded labour system; (f) " bonded labourer" means a labourer who incurs, or has, or is presumed to have, incurred, a bonded debt; (g) " bonded labour system" means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that,-- (i) in consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants (whether or not such advance is evidenced by any document) and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such advance, or (ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or (iii) in pursuance of an obligation devolving on him by succession, or (iv) for any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants, or (v) by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community, he would-- (1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages, or (2) forfeit the freedom of employment or other means of livelihood for a specified period or for an unspecified period, or (3) forfeit the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, or (4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property or product of his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person dependent on him, and includes the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a surety for a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that in the event of the failure of the debtor to repay the debt, he would render the bonded labour on behalf of the debtor; [Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any system of forced, or partly forced labour under which any workman being contract labour as defined in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970 ), or an inter-State migrant workman as defined in clause (e) of sub- section (1) of section 2 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of 1979 ), is required to render labour or service in circumstances of the nature mentioned in sub-clause (1) of this clause or is subjected to all or any of the disabilities referred to in sub-clauses (2) to (4), is" bonded labour system" within the meaning of this clause.] 18. Punishment for extracting bonded labour under the bonded labour system.-Whoever enforces, after the commencement of this Act, any custom, tradition, contract, agreement or other instrument, by virtue of which any person or any member of the family of such person or any dependant of such person is required to render any service under the bonded labour system shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees; and, out of the fine, if recovered, payment shall be made to the bonded labourer at the rate of rupees five for each day for which the bonded labour was extracted from him. 19. Punishment for omission or failure to restore possession of property to bonded labourers.- Whoever, being required by this Act to restore any property to the possession of any bonded labourer, omits or fails to do so, within a period of thirty days from the commencment of this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; and, out of the fine, if recovered, payment shall be made to the bonded labourer at the rate of rupees five for each day during which possession of the property was not restored to him. 20. Abetment to be an offence.- Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act shall, whether or not the offence abetted is committed, be punishable with the same punishment as is provided for the offence which has been abetted. Explanation,-- For the purpose of this Act," abetment" has the meaning assigned to it in the Indian Penal Code (46 of 1860 ). 10. From a reading of the said provisions, it is clear that the bonded labour system means a system of forced or partly forced labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have entered into an agreement with the creditor in consideration of advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants and descendants, in pursuance of any customary or social obligation or in pursuance of an obligation devolving on him by succession or for any economic consideration received by him or by his ascendants or descendants or by reason of birth in any particular caste or community. The word ‘advance’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, would give an indication as to who a creditor and a debtor is. Advances given either in cash or in kind by any person would be referred to as creditor and the person, who receives the same is to be described as a debtor. Further a bonded labourer means, a labourer, who incurs, or is presumed to have incurred a bonded debt. The bonded debt as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act means an advance obtained or is presumed to have been obtained by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of the bonded labour system. As stated earlier, bonded labour system would mean a system by which a labourer enters into an agreement with a creditor under various circumstances enumerated under Section 2(g) of the Act. 11. Section 17 of the Act deals with the situation of punishing a person, who advances any bonded debt while Section 18 of the Act deals with the situation of punishing a person, who enforces any custom, tradition, contract, agreement or other instrument by virtue of which a person is required to render any service under bonded labour system. Section 19 of the Act deals with punishment for omission or failure to restore possession of property to bonded labourers and Section 20 of the Act deals with abetment of any offence punishable under the Act and the word abetment shall be given the same meaning as assigned in Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 12. The question now would be whether the petitioner can be treated as a creditor for having used the services of bonded labourers through gumpu mestri. Secondly whether the petitioner can be held responsible for abetting the said offence. 13. A reading of the charge sheet and the statements of the bonded labourers recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police during the course of investigation into the said crime, would indicate that they have taken advance from gumpu mestri for the purpose of doing concrete work for a period of one year at places allotted by him. He is alleged to have restricted their freedom and never cared for their health and security. All the witnesses in one voice said that gumpu mestri used to make them do the work from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. without providing proper food. He is alleged to have restricted their freedom and never cared for their health and security. All the witnesses in one voice said that gumpu mestri used to make them do the work from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. without providing proper food. There is no reference to the name of the petitioner in the statements of the labourers recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 14. The word gumpu mestri came up for consideration in a decision reported by this Court in G.Masi Reddy and others v. State of A.P. and others ( 2010 (1) ALD 325 ), wherein it is held that gumpu mestri acts as a middleman, takes advance amount from the employer/contractor and gives money as advance to wage seekers as per his whims and fancies. He is held to be a perpetrator of bonded labour system as he enters into an agreement either written or oral giving advances, ‘decides daily wages’ and also restrict and shift them from one site to another according to the requirement of the builders/contractors. It is further held that there is no direct agreement between the employer/contractor and wage seeker. Gumpu mestri is held to be a direct controlling person on the migrant labour because of which the Government proposed stringent and deterrent criminal action under the Act. 15. It is apparent that there is no direct link between the petitioner, who is the employer and the wage seeker i.e. bonded labourer. As stated supra, there is no reference to the petitioner in the statements of the bonded labourers recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In unequivocal terms the labourers have stated that money was paid by gumpu mestri and were made to do the work in inhumane conditions. As such it cannot be said that the petitioner is the creditor to the bonded labourers. If he is not a creditor, he cannot form part of the bonded labour system as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act will not apply to the facts of the case as there is no reference to any dispute relating to restoration of any property to the possession of any bonded labourer. 16. Hence, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act will not apply to the facts of the case as there is no reference to any dispute relating to restoration of any property to the possession of any bonded labourer. 16. The next question would be whether the petitioner can be held liable for abetment of any of the offence punishable under the Act. 17. Explanation to Section 20 of the Act says that for the purpose of this Act, ‘abetment’ shall have the same meaning as assigned in Indian Penal Code. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 ), the Apex Court held as under: The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in Section 107 IPC, which defines “abetment” of a thing as follows: “107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.” 18. As per the section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment”. 19. Explanation to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment”. 19. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 ), the Apex Court said that ‘instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.’ The Court went on to say that “Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction”; “to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts”. Similarly, the Court went on to explain the meaning of the word “urge” i.e. to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 20. Similarly in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 ) the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where harassment at work place by the employer led to commission of suicide by one of his employees. After referring to various authorities, the Apex Court held that “the offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. 21. In view of the above principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court with regard to the meaning of word ‘abetment’ as mentioned under Section 107 of IPC, I proceed to deal with the matter on hand. 22. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. 21. In view of the above principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court with regard to the meaning of word ‘abetment’ as mentioned under Section 107 of IPC, I proceed to deal with the matter on hand. 22. A reading of the charge sheet along with the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police during the course of investigation, does not anywhere indicate that the petitioner has either instigated or aided or abetted the labourers to work under him. The charge sheet is also silent with regard to the petitioner entering into an agreement or paying advances to the bonded labourers. The entire allegations in the charge sheet are directed against A1 and it was he who engaged the labourers by entering into an agreement with them by paying advance. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted even for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. 23. iewed from any angle, it can be said that the provisions of the Act will not apply to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in D/1952/2009 on the file of the Executive Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Narayanapet, Mahabubnagar District against the petitioner. The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.