Delhi High Court

Atelier Fashion Flash Pvt.Ltd. vs Provident Fund Inspector on 2 May, 2014

Author: V.P.Vaish

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        Date of decision: 02nd May, 2014

+   CRL.M.C. 1101/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.       ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR              ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1109/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.       ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR              ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1110/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.       ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR              ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1111/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.       ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR              ..... Respondent

                  And




                                                      Page 1 of 7
 +   CRL.M.C. 1112/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1113/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1114/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1115/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1116/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent


                                                  Page 2 of 7
                   And

+   CRL.M.C. 1117/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1118/2013
    ATELIER FASHION PVT.LTD.          ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent

                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1119/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent
                 And

+   CRL.M.C. 1120/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus

    PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR          ..... Respondent
                  And

+   CRL.M.C. 1121/2013
    ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.   ..... Petitioner

                  versus



                                                  Page 3 of 7
       PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR                    ..... Respondent

                        And

+     CRL.M.C. 1122/2013
      ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.             ..... Petitioner

                        versus

      PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR                    ..... Respondent

                        And

+     CRL.M.C. 1123/2013
      ATELIER FASHION FLASH PVT. LTD.             ..... Petitioner

                        versus

      PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR                    ..... Respondent

                  Present :      Mr.Jagdev Singh & Mr.Jugal Kishor
                                 Gupta, Adv. for the
                                 petitioner.
                                 Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Adv. for the
                                 respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of these petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated 21.03.2011 passed by learned ACMM-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in complaint case Nos.31/1/11, 41/1/11, 38/1/11, 32/1/11, 43/1/11, 35/1/11, 39/1/11, 36/1/11, 42/1/11, 33/1/11, 40/1/11, 44/1/11, 46/1/11, 34/1/11, 45/1/11and 37/1/11 whereby the cognizance was taken and the petitioner was summoned for the offence under Para 38 of Employees Provident Fund Scheme,1952 read with Section 6 and 14(1A) of

the Employees Provident Fund and the Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.

2. Since all the 16 complaints are between the same parties and also similar question of law arise in all the complaints, therefore, all the petitions are disposed of by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of Rs.77,189/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand One thousand and Eighty Nine) deposited on 22.10.2010 with State Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi before launching the prosecution by the respondent. He further submits that there is a circular No.FD/E-11/22/74 dated 30.10.1974 issued by Central Provident Fund Commissioner which provides that the prosecution may not be filed where the establishment has paid the dues before the prosecution is launched. The complaints were filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts on 19.03.2011.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent issued a notice regarding payment of interest on the said amount and the petitioner had also paid the interest amounting to Rs.59,318/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen) on 12.05.2011 with State Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi. Copy of receipt has been filed as Annexure P-8 to the petition.

5. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Calcutta High Court in Jasoda Glass & Silicate & Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund, (2002) IIILLJ 1047 Cal and Air Transport Corporation vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2006(4) CHN 701 wherein after deposit of the amount, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

6. Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Recovery Officer has certified that the amount of Rs.77,189/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand One thousand and Eighty Nine) was deposited on 22.02.2010 by M/s. Atelier Apparels & Footwear (P) Ltd. The counsel for the respondent submits that in the meantime, the competent authority has given the sanction on 18.01.2013 and the prosecution was initiated. He also submits that the office of respondent received Rs.2,46,683/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Three) from the petitioner for the period 08/02 to 05/2006 as per the report of the Enforcement Officer.

7. The affidavit of Mr. K. L. Parihar, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) dated 15.04.2005 has been filed to the effect that the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.77,189/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand One thousand and Eighty Nine).

8. The Apex Court in Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund, (1995) Supp (4) SCC 580, it was observed that in case the entire amount of the provident fund is deposited, the proceedings of the prosecution need not be pursued.

9. Section 482 Cr.P.C inheres in the High Court the power to make such order as may be considered necessary to, interalia, prevent the abuse of the process of law or to serve the ends of justice. While it will be wholly unnecessary to revert or refer to the settled position in law with regard to the contours of the power available under Section 482 Cr.P.C it must be remembered that continuance of a criminal proceedings which is likely to become oppressive or may partake the character of a lame prosecution

would be good ground to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of Provident Fund of Rs.77,189/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand One thousand and Eighty Nine) on 22.10.2010, the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent in the aforementioned complaints stands dropped.

11.With the aforesaid observation, all the petitions stand disposed of.

Crl.M.A. No.3385/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1101/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3400/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1109/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3402/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1110/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3404/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1111/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3406/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1112/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3408/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1113/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3410/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1114/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3412/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1115/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3414/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1116/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3416/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1117/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3418/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1118/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3420/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1119/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3422/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1120/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3424/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1121/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3426/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1122/2013 Crl.M.A. No.3428/2013 in Crl.M.C. No.1123/2013 The applications are dismissed as infructuous.

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE May 02, 2014/gm