SHANTI VIHAR HOTELS LTD Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four accused who are facing trial in C.C. Nos. 2662/91 to 2666/ 91 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet on complaints filed by the respondent herein, invoke the inherent powers of this Court under section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the above proceedings.

(2.) The prosecutions are for offences under sections 14(1A) and 14A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952, section 6C read with section 14(1B), 14A and 14AA of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976, sections 14(2), 14A and 14AA of the above Act read with paragraphs 7 6(b) and (d) of the Schemes framed there under, for failure to pay the employers share of the Provident Fund for the months of August, September and October 1990, failure to pay the Family Pension Fund, Administrative charges, Insurance Fund dues and failure to file returns for the above period and also failure to file the initial return on ownership for the first Petitioner Company.

(3.) Thiru J. Josephath, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that though in the complaints, it is stated that the petitioners 2 to 4 are in charge of the first petitioner establishment and are responsible to it for the conduct of the business and that it is further stated that the offences were committed by the establishment, with the consent and connivance of petitioners 2 to 4 and were attributable to their neglect, yet details as to how petitioners 2 to 4 are responsible to the first petitioner for the conduct of the business and details as to how the offences were committed by the first petitioner with the connivance, consent and negligence of the other petitioners are lacking and the above allegations, merely borrowing the wordings of the concerned provisions of law would not satisfy the legal requirement. The learned counsel would further submit, that the averments are bald and the facts constituting the above averments are not mentioned and as such no offence is made out against petitioners 2 to 4 allowing the prosecutions to continue, would be an abuse of the process of the criminal court and as such, the complaints have to be quashed. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in K.N. Genda v. State1 and a judgment of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Anantharamaiah Woolen Factory v. State2. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the complaints disclose any offence against the petitioners to warrant a trial.