K L SANKARAPANDIAN PROPRIETOR Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the sole accused in S.T.C.No.230 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, facing prosecution for the alleged offence under Section 85(3) read with 85(ii) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 on the complaint of the respondent, has come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking to quash the proceedings.

(2.) THE case of the Insurance Corporation, in brief, as per the complaint is as follows:- THE petitioner is the owner of a factory known as M/s.K.L.Sankarapandian & Co., at Virudhunagar and the said factory is covered as per the provisions of Section 1(4) read with 2 (12)of the Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE petitioner is the Principal Employer as defined in Section 2(17) of the Act. As per Section 44 of the Act, the petitioner, being the Principal Employer of the factory is required to furnish the returns to the respondent. For the contribution period ended with 30.09.2004, the return should have been submitted by him on or before 11.11.2004. But, the petitioner has failed to submit the same. THE said failure to submit the return, according to the Insurance Corporation is an offence under Section 85(e) of the Act. With these allegations, the respondent has laid the private complaint, on which the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance.

(3.) IT is seen from the records that the private complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 18.05.2005 and cognizance was taken on the same day. The interim order of stay came to be passed by the Insurance Court after about 11 months of launching of the prosecution. The petitioner would contend that since the question whether the petitioner's concern is a factory and whether the petitioner is a Principal Employer or not are in dispute before the competent Court viz., the Employees State Insurance Court and therefore, the prosecution is not maintainable and further the said questions cannot be decided by the Criminal Court. Thus, according to the petitioner, allowing of the prosecution to continue further would be a wasteful exercise and the same would amount to abuse of process of Court. On these grounds, the petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking to quash the said proceedings.