SUBIMAL BOSE OF BOMBAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F.I.R. in C.R.No.130 of 1988 recorded by the R.C.F. Police Station, Chembur, Bombay. Heard both the sides.

(2.) FEW facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Petition are as follows: The Petitioner is a Director of Union Carbide India Limited who has filed the present Petition. The Company has 7500 employees all over India. For the employees at Calcutta, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has granted exemption from the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and allowed the Company to have its own Scheme for Provident Fund in the interest of the employees. There are 18 employees of the Company in Chembur Unit at Bombay. Inspite of the Company having addressed a letter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Bombay for exemption from the provisions of the Act and for permission to deposit the contributions in separate Scheme of the Company, no reply was received from Respondent No.2. Hence the Company has been deducting the contributions from the employees and also paying its own contribution and crediting the amount in the Company's Provident Fund Scheme with the consent of the employees. The company has been doing this in good faith pending approval from the Provident Fund Commissioner. Now the Company has come to know that the Provident Fund Commissioner's office has lodged a complaint with the police alleging that the Company has committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in not crediting the Provident Fund contribution under the provisions of the Act. Having come to know of the same, the Director of the Company applied to this Court and got an Order of anticipatory bail. Then the Company has approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. on the ground that no offence is committed by the Company and they have been depositing the amount in the Company's Provident Fund Scheme with the bona fide belief pending approval from the Provident Fund Commissioner.

(3.) THEREFORE, we have to find out from the complaint whether cognisable offence is made out or not. If once the Court comes to the conclusion that the F.I.R. does not disclose a cognisable offence then this Court should exercise its power in quashing the F.I.R. at this stage.