[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Measures M.P. Security Force vs Engorcement Officer on 16 March, 2026

1 MCRC-25023-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21720 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjaria and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocate for the
respondent.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6629 of 2022
LAKHAN LAL SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR
Appearance:
Ms.Poonam Singh - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Devendra Singh Baghel - Advocate for the respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21488 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
2 MCRC-25023-2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22281 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22709 of 2023
MEASURES M.P.SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22710 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22711 of 2023
MEASURES M.P.SECURITY FORCE
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
3 MCRC-25023-2023
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22936 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22939 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22942 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22956 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
4 MCRC-25023-2023
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22961 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23518 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SESCURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23558 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23559 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
5 MCRC-25023-2023
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23560 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23561 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23565 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23577 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
6 MCRC-25023-2023
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23581 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23586 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23588 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23592 of 2023

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
7 MCRC-25023-2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23596 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICCER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23603 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23610 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
8 MCRC-25023-2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23621 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23989 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECUTIRY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23990 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23991 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
9 MCRC-25023-2023
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23992 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23994 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24241 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25023 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE
Versus
ENGORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM
10 MCRC-25023-2023
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25822 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25832 of 2023
MEASURE M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25838 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.

ORDER

As the issue involved in all these petitions is common and identical, they are heard and decided together. For the shake of convenience the facts

11 MCRC-25023-2023 are being taken from M.Cr.C. No.6629/2022.

The aforesaid petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal arising out of complaint cases instituted by the Provident Fund Inspector of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The prosecution has been initiated alleging violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder.

2. The factual background giving rise to the present proceedings reveals that petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of an establishment operating in the name and style of "M.P. Security Force", which was engaged in supplying manpower and security personnel to various government and semi- government institutions on contractual basis. The establishment was admittedly covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and had been allotted a code number by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. Being an employer within the meaning of the Act of 1952, the petitioners were under a statutory obligation to deduct the employees' contribution towards provident fund and deposit the same along with the employer's share within the time prescribed under the Act and the schemes framed thereunder.

3. From the material placed before this Court, it appears that the

12 MCRC-25023-2023 authorities of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation conducted an inspection and initiated inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 in respect of the petitioner establishment for the period commencing from February 2008 to March 2012. During the course of such inquiry, it was found that the establishment had failed to deposit provident fund contributions within the stipulated period and that substantial amounts representing employees' share as well as employer's share remained unpaid for several months falling within the said period. The inquiry authority, after examining the relevant records and hearing the establishment, determined the amount payable by the petitioners and concluded that statutory defaults had been committed in respect of the provident fund contributions.

4. Subsequent to the determination of the liability and upon examination of the material on record, the competent authority granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioners for offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Thereafter the Provident Fund Inspector filed criminal complaints before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal alleging that the petitioners had failed to deposit the statutory contributions within the

prescribed time and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 6, 14(1-A) and 14A of the Act of 1952 read with the relevant schemes framed thereunder.

5. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the complaint and the material accompanying the same, took cognizance of the offences and directed issuance of process against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the

13 MCRC-25023-2023

continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners have approached this Court by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the prosecution launched by the respondents is unsustainable in law for the reason that the entire dues determined by the authorities have subsequently been deposited by the establishment. It has been submitted that the amount of Rs.1,76,76,311/- representing the provident fund dues has already been paid and that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation has acknowledged the liquidation of the dues. According to the petitioners, once the statutory liability has been discharged and the dues have been paid, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unjustified and would amount to misuse of the criminal process.

7. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioners that several criminal complaints have been filed by the respondents on the basis of a single inquiry report and therefore the prosecution is liable to be quashed. It has also been submitted that the alleged defaults occurred due to financial constraints faced by the establishment and delay in payment from the principal employers to whom manpower services were supplied. The petitioners have thus urged that the inherent powers of this Court should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has

14 MCRC-25023-2023 placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 580, and Salib Alias Shalu Alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 194; in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station v. Regional Provident Fund [Civil Appeal Nos. 2136/2012, 2121/2012, 2135/2012, 2141/2012, decided on 23.02.2022]; and also the judgment of High Court of Madras in Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation [W.P. No. 184 of 1996 & W.M.P. No. 275 of 1996, decided on 25.10.2002]; the judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation Officer v. Bilaspur Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. & Another , 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 635 [WPL No. 177 of 2013, decided on 05.04.2022]; Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through RPFC v. Bilaspur Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. & Another , 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 1737 [WA No. 249 of 2023, decided on 16.06.2023]; the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in M.R. Joseph v. John Menezes , 2003 (6) DarLJ 163; and the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in Alembic Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 1426 of 2014, S.Cr.A. Nos. 1543, 1546, 1547 & 3017 of 2014, decided on 11.12.2014].

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioners committed repeated statutory defaults by failing to deposit provident fund contributions within

15 MCRC-25023-2023 the time prescribed under the Act of 1952. It has been argued that the liability of the employer to deposit provident fund contributions is a statutory obligation and that failure to comply with such obligation constitutes an offence under the Act. It is further contended that each month's failure to deposit contributions constitutes a separate offence and therefore the filing of separate complaints in respect of separate periods cannot be said to be illegal. The respondents have further submitted that the subsequent deposit of the amount after initiation of prosecution does not absolve the employer of criminal liability arising from the statutory default. It is submitted that the petitioners have not deposited the penalty and the interest as required in the respective matters. It is further submitted that some of the cases are pending at the stage of issuance of summons; some are at the stage of framing of charges; some are at the stage of recording of evidence; and some are at the final stage of trial. In certain cases, the proceedings have already been concluded and the Trial Court has convicted the accused persons.

10. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present case essentially relates to the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the effect of subsequent payment of provident fund dues on criminal liability arising under the Employees'

16 MCRC-25023-2023 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

12. Before examining the rival submissions advanced by the parties, it would be appropriate to consider the statutory scheme governing the Act of 1952. The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a beneficial social welfare legislation enacted with the object of providing financial security to employees in the form of provident fund, pension and insurance benefits. The provisions of the Act cast a statutory obligation upon employers to deposit contributions towards provident fund in respect of employees engaged by the establishment.

13. Section 6 of the Act of 1952 mandates that the employer shall contribute to the provident fund in respect of employees at the rate prescribed under the scheme and shall also deduct the employees' contribution from their wages and deposit the same with the provident fund authorities. The statutory scheme further provides that such contributions must be deposited within the time prescribed under the relevant scheme, which ordinarily requires the employer to deposit the contributions within fifteen days from the close of each month.

14. Section 14 of the Act provides for penalties in cases where the employer makes default in payment of contributions or fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or the schemes framed thereunder. Section 14(1-A) specifically prescribes punishment for failure to pay contributions to the fund. Section 14A further provides that where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who was in charge of and

17 MCRC-25023-2023 responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.

15. In my considered opinion, the scheme of the Act leaves no room for doubt that the obligation to deposit provident fund contributions is mandatory in nature and that failure to comply with such obligation attracts penal consequences. The provisions of the Act are intended to protect the rights of employees and to ensure that the contributions deducted from the wages of employees are deposited in the provident fund without delay. Any failure on the part of the employer to deposit such contributions within the prescribed period not only violates the statutory mandate but also adversely affects the financial security of employees.

16. The argument advanced by the petitioners that the subsequent deposit of the amount should result in quashing of the criminal proceedings cannot be accepted in light of the settled principles governing prosecution under welfare legislations. The offence under the Act is complete the moment the employer fails to deposit the contributions within the time prescribed under the statute. Subsequent payment of the amount, though relevant for purposes of mitigation, does not erase the offence which had already been committed. Upon perusal of the judgments cited by the petitioner, this Court finds that the aforesaid citations/judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the facts of the present case are entirely different from those in the cases relied upon by the petitioner.

17. In this context, it would be useful to refer to the principles laid down

18 MCRC-25023-2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) wherein the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC was elaborately discussed. The Supreme Court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

18. Similarly, in Necharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not undertake an appreciation of evidence or examine the correctness of allegations at the stage of quashing. If the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence, the criminal proceedings should ordinarily be allowed to continue.

19. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the complaint filed by the Provident Fund Inspector clearly discloses the commission of offences under the provisions of the Act of 1952. The allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value, indicate that the petitioners failed to deposit provident fund contributions within the time prescribed under the statute. The inquiry conducted by the authorities also recorded findings regarding the defaults committed by the establishment.

20. The contention of the petitioners that multiple complaints have been

19 MCRC-25023-2023 filed on the basis of a single inquiry report is also devoid of merit. Under the statutory scheme governing provident fund contributions, the employer is required to deposit contributions on a monthly basis. Each month's failure to deposit the contribution constitutes a distinct default and therefore gives rise to a separate offence. Consequently, the filing of separate complaints in respect of separate periods cannot be said to be contrary to law.

21. It must also be observed that the Act of 1952 is a welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of employees and therefore strict compliance with its provisions is essential. Any interpretation which enables employers to escape criminal liability merely by depositing the amount after initiation of prosecution would defeat the very object of the statute. Such an approach would encourage employers to withhold employees' contributions and deposit them only after detection by the authorities.

22. In my considered opinion, the subsequent deposit of provident fund dues by the petitioners does not extinguish the criminal liability arising from the statutory default committed by them. The defence raised by the petitioners regarding financial difficulties or delay in payment by principal employers are matters which may be examined during the course of trial, but such considerations cannot be a ground for quashing the prosecution at the threshold.

23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings initiated against them are either frivolous or constitute an abuse of the process of the

20 MCRC-25023-2023 Court. The allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of offences under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

24. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

25. The learned trial court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and decide the case on its own merits, as early as possible, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

(B. P. SHARMA) JUDGE

@shish