R.K Sekhri vs Enforcement Officer Central Board Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3262 P&H

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3262 P&H
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

R.K Sekhri vs Enforcement Officer Central Board Of ... on 12 March, 2025

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036009




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
261
                                                CRM
                                                CRM-M-30190-2022 (O&M)
                                                Reserved on : 003.03.2025
                                                Date of Decision: 12.03.2025

R.K. Sekhri                                                    ...Petitioner

              Vs.

Enforcement Officer, Central Board of Trustees EPFO            ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL

Present:      Mr. Vivek Salathia,, Advocate for the petitioner.

         M. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the respondent.
              ***

H.S. GREWAL, GREWAL J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for

quashing of criminal complaint bearing COMI No.37 of 2018, dated

09.02.2018 (CNR No.PBGDA10003442018) under Sections 405, 406, 409 of

the IPC, titled as Enforcement Officer, Central Board of Trustees (EPFO) vs.

R.K. Shekhri and summoning order dated 11.04.2018 and all other

consequential proceedings arising thereto.

2. The facts as germane from the record are that the petitioner petitioner's 's

establishment is a sole proprietorship con concern cern having a number of

skilled/unskilled workers and employees for the smooth functioning of the

establishment. However, due to certain financial exigencies and uncertainties,

the establishment of the petitioner became non non-functional functional entity and was

fighting ng for its survival. In the month of September, 2013, the petitioner

received summons U/s 7-A 7 of the EPF & MP Act Act, 1952 for the assessment

proceedings for the period from April, 2008 to July, 2013 and without

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036009

CRM-M-30190 30190-2022 (O&M) -2-

conducting an independent enquiry, the respondent passed ass assessment essment order

dated 29.04.2016 (Annexure P-3).

3. The aforesaid assessment order was challenged by the petitioner

by filing review application U/s 7-B 7 B of the Act but the decision of the same

was never communicated to the petitioner. In n the interregnum, the respondent

issued show cause notices notice dated 08.06.2017 and 18.02.2021 demanding a

sum of Rs.7,58,702. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply

mentioning that an amount of Rs.7,39,412/-

Rs.7,39,412/ has already been deposited under

protest est despite the review application is still sub sub-judice.

4. Although the review application was pending, the respondent

simultaneously filed the impugned criminal complaint against the petitioner,

wherein, the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.04.20 11.04.2018, 18, opted to

summon the petitioner by treating it as a summary trial.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a patent

illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the

impugned summoning order as the approach adopt adopted ed by the learned trial

Court in treating the complaint as a summary trial runs contrary to the

statutory mandate of Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C. 1973. Learned counsel

further submitted that the assessment order has already been challenged by

the petitioner before the higher authorities, wherein, stay has been granted in

favour of the petitioner and under such circumstances, there was no occasion

with the respondent to file complaint against the petitioner.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitte submitted d that no

explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why the dues of the

employees towards provident fund were not deposited within time and

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036009

CRM-M-30190 30190-2022 (O&M) -3-

deposition of the same later on, would not absolve the petitioner from

criminal liability.

7. I have considered considered the submissions of rival parties and have gone

through the record carefully.

8. From the record, I find that the learned trial Court while passing

the impugned order dated 11.04.2018, has categorically held that there is no

need to record preliminary preliminary evidence as the present case is in the nature of

summary trial. It is submitted that the approach of the learned trial Court in

treating the impugned complaint as a summary trial is against the statutory

mandate of Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Pr Procedure, ocedure, 1973. Since the

offences invoked against the petitioner are puni punishable shable with sentence

exceeding two years, therefore, the the aforesaid complaint would fall within the

category of warrant case as defined under Section 2(x) of the Cr.P.C.

9. It is also also apparent that the impugned order has been passed by

the learned trial Court without recording any finding. In the recent judgment

of J.M. Laboratories and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

another SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, decided on 30.01.2 30.01.2025, 025, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

under:

'Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious

matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of

course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused

must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case

and the law applicable thereto.'

10. In the present case, what to talk of discussion of applicability of

law on the issue, even no findings have been recorded by the learned trial

Court while passing the summoning order. More so, it has also been stated by

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036009

CRM-M-30190 30190-2022 (O&M) -4-

the counsel for the petitioner that the assessment order which has been made

the basis for summoning the petitioner, petitioner has already been stayed by the

authorities.

11. Be that as it may, the impugned order sans recording ording of finding

and treating the same to be a summary trial, trial, cannot be said to be valid and

legal and is accordingly liable to be set aside.

12. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 11.04.2018, is set aside an and d the matter is remanded

back to the learned trial Court with a direction to firstly call for preliminary

evidence and proceed with the matter afresh and if summoning is required,

then it may proceed as per law.

(H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE 12.03.2025 poonam