R.S. PATEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No. 180 of 2002 under Sections 406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mehrauli. The FIR was registered at the instance of an employee of the school run by the Sewa Sadhena Samity, a registered society of which the Petitioners were Chairman, Manager, Secretary and Member (Acting Head Mistress) respectively. The complainant approached the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ( MM ) under Section 156 with the complaint stating that his provident fund dues had not been paid by the Petitioners despite his services having been terminated on 31st March, 2001. It was stated that the Petitioners had misappropriated the provident fund amount and that they should therefore be punished for the offence under Section 406/34 IPC.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that due to financial difficulties, the Society could not make the statutory deposit of the PF dues with the Provident Fund Department. However on 9th September, 2005 the Society made the payment of the entire dues to the Department and this includes the share of the complainant. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent deposit, no useful purpose will be served in keeping these criminal proceedings pending. It is further contended that cognisance of the complaint ought not to have been taken by the learned MM as it was beyond the limitation stipulated under section 468 Cr.P.C.

(3.) As regards the last submission it is noticed that the services of the complainant came to an end on 31st March, 2001. He made a complaint first to the Provident Fund Commissioner on 13th February, 2002 regarding non-payment of the PF dues. Thereafter the complaint before the MM was filed on 27th March, 2002. The FIR was registered on 8th April, 2002. Considering that the offence under Section 406 IPC is punishable with a sentence up to a maximum of three years, it cannot be said that the cognizance in this case was taken beyond the period of limitation under section 468 Cr.P.C.