The legal principle established is that a party claiming to be a sleeping partner must provide reliable evidence of their status from the creation of the partnership firm to be exempt from liabilities.

A.K. Trivedi, J.-

Petitioner, Usha Rani Rajgarhia filed instant writ with a prayer for quashment of all the criminal cases pending before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawada as well as certificate proceeding pending before Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar.

2. It has been submitted that firm M/s. Bhanakhap Mica Mining Company happens to be partnership firm and happens to be ancestral property. In the year 1957 Partition Suit No. 642 of 1957 was filed before the Hon'ble Court. Caltutta at the behest of Bajrang Rajgarhia as well as Mohan Lal Rajgarhia which was referred to arbitration followed with award which was accepted by the parties and in pursuance thereof, petitioner are got half share and in the aforesaid background, there was new constitution of partnership consisting the petitioner along-with Purushottam Lal Rajgarhia, Mahavir Prasad Rajgarhia, Basudeo Lal Rajgarhia, Madhura Prasad Rajgarhia, Ram Narayan Rajgarhia. Although petitioner stood as one of the partner but on account of illness (Annexure-1) she became sleeping partner and the day-to-day affair was looked after by other partners. In due course of time in the year 1989 petitioner retired from partnership having a privilege that she will not be responsible for any previous liability. In pursuance thereof petitioner had already informed the official concerned with regard thereto. 'In spite of having occupying the aforesaid status, the official of Employees Provident Fund filed criminal cases against the petitioner bearing Case Nos. 308 of 1987, 309 of 1987, 310 of 1987, 311 of 1987 to 373 of 1987 under Sections 14(1A), 14(1B), of the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as para 76(d) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 14(2), 14(a) of the aforesaid Act. Further a certificate proceeding has also been launched before Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar under Certificate Case No.2 of 1990, 3 of 1990. Then submitted that as the petitioner happens to be a sleeping partner , therefore she cannot be held responsible nor any proceeding should be launched against her as such submission is that the criminal proceeding as well as the certificate proceeding is liable to be quashed. Also referred 1986 PLJR 410, (2002)7 SCC 655, (1981)2 SCC 335, AIR 1971 SC 2162, 2011 (3) PLJR 100, (1995)4 SCC 580.

3. Refuting the allegation, the State by filing counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioners have filed instant petition for quashing of 68 cases which is not at all maintainable because of the fact that each case gives an independent cause, therefore, altogether 68 cases should have been filed so far criminal cases are concerned. With regard to certificate proceeding, it has been submitted that prayer has been made for quashing of two certificates proceeding which has got two independent cause and for that two independent writs should have been filed. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case there cannot be clubbing of relief as all the cases have got their independent identity. Moreover, the petitioners have not filed certified copy of the complaint of all the cases followed with cognizance order and in likewise manner the certified copy of both the case of certificate proceeding has not been filed as such the petition in its present form is not at all maintainable. Further been submitted that cognizance has been taken in the year 1987 while the instant proceeding has been brought up after expiry of eleven years and the delay so caused is not explained hence the petitioners are not entitled for any relief whatsoever been sought for. Then submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that petitioner happens to be a sleeping partner. Mere assertion of petitioner without supported with any positive, concrete material is not at all acceptable nor is maintainable. So the petition is fit to be dismissed.

4. From the Annexures attached with main petition, it is evident that no copy of complaint pe