IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4385 of 2008()
1. P.P.MUKUNDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR,
3. T.V.SREEDHARAN, MADHAV NIVAS, ELAMAKKARA
4. N.SIVADASAN, S/O.PARAMESWARA MENON,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4385 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences
punishable under the Employees Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The crux of the charge is that
there was non compliance with the provisions of the said Act
relating to payment of dues etc. Cognizance has been taken.
The petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer
that the prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. What is the reason ? The only contention raised is
that the entire liability under the Employees Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act has subsequently been discharged
by payment. It is further pointed out that the company had come
to this Court and another Bench of this Court as per Annexure-
A3 judgment had granted instalment facility to discharge the
liability. The said order has been scrupulously complied with
and no liability does exist now. In these circumstances it is
prayed that the prosecutions may be quashed.
Crl.M.C. No.4385 of 2008 2
3. It is now well settled that the mere fact that civil
liability had subsequently been discharged, is no reason to quash
a criminal prosecution under a welfare legislation like the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Annexure-A3 judgment also only shows that recovery
proceedings were kept in abeyance awaiting compliance of the
direction to pay the amount in instalments. It does not speak
about the culpable liability at all.
4. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any
circumstances which can persuade this Court to invoke the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner must approach the authorities under the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
The request for withdrawal, needless to say, must be considered
by such authorities. Discharge of liability can of course be
pleaded as an extenuating circumstance.
5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-