NITYARANJAN PYARELAL SARKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I - 60 of 2018 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, for the offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 409 and 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) Learned advocate, Mr. KJ Panchal appearing for the petitioners referring to the judgments in cases of (1) Savindersing Bhatti Vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No.8949 of 2010 (2) BR Daga, Managing Director, Air Control and Chemical Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and another, Criminal Misc. Application No.6879 of 2009 (3) Sangramsinh Gaikwad Vs. State of Gujarat and another , Special Criminal Application No.1909 of 2009 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of KL Chachra @ Krishan Lal Chachra Vs. State of Jharkhand , AIR online 2019 SC 2038, would mainly argue that though the petitioners were facing financial crunch and could not deposit share of provident fund of their employee with the department within stipulated time period, subsequently, they have deposited entire fund of the share of their employee. He would further submit that various proceedings were started under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act /Scheme against the petitioners and various demands were raised pursuant to such proceedings, however, the petitioners have already deposited funds of their share. He would further submit that now the prosecution may not be continued against the petitioners as it is a futile exercise. He would further submit that the petitioners have also informed to the Regional Commissioner, PPFO, ESIC that their business activity has been closed with effect from 1/12/2017. Therefore, he would submit that in these peculiar facts and circumstances, the prosecution against the petitioners may not be continued. Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Panchal requests to allow the petition.