Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006
Sections 4(7)(8), 117, 234, 303(e) and 307
Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015
Rule 107
Workers Welfare Foundation Act, 2006
Section 14(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A
For quashing a proceeding under section 561A of the Code— On this point, this Division in the case of Ali Akkas Vs. Enayet Hossain and others, reported in 17 BLD(AD)44 held ‘to bring a case within the purview of section 561A of the Code for the purpose of quashing a proceeding, one of the following conditions must be fulfilled:
(I) Interference even at an initial stage may be justified where the facts are so preposterous that even on admitted facts no case stands against the accused;
(II) Where the institution and continuation of the proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court;
(III) Where there is a legal bar against the initiation or continuation of the proceeding;
(IV) In a case where the allegations in the FIR or the petition of complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged and
(V) The allegations against the accused although constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.’
The Indian Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (reported in AIR 1960 SC 866) summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings are:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused persons constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” .....Professor Muhammad Yunus =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 392] ....View Full Judgment