DERVINDER SINGH Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Criminal complaint No. 72 of 2.2.2009 titled as 'Provident Fund Inspector vs. Tip Top Dry Cleaners and Dyers and Others' (Annexure P1) and summoning order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P2) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), only those partners, who were responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment, could be impleaded as accused. As per form 5A (Annexure P3) submitted by the establishment, Paramjit Singh was the person who was Incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment. The said partner was facing the criminal proceedings. Petitioner was although one of the partner of the establishment but he was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment. Even otherwise, the entire amount in question had already been deposited by the establishment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. However, he has admitted the factum of the deposit of the amount in question by the establishment.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.