BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THESE batch of applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, between the same parties, having been involved, common questions of fact and law, were heard together and are disposed of under a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 which is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at 237 D, Manicktala Main Road, P. S. Narkeldanga, Calcutta 54 and the other petitioners as its Directors have filed these applications to quash the batch of complaint cases Nos. C/125/90, C/126/90, C/127/90, C/128/90, C/129/90, C/130/90, C/185/90, C/186/90, C/187/90, C/188/90, C/1028/89, C/1029/89, C/1030/89, C/1031/89, now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at Sealdah lodged by the opposite party No. 1 Provident Fund Inspector, West Bengal, 44, Park Street, Calcutta-16 under Section 14 (1a), 14a (1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act of 1952 read with para 76-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

( 3 ) THE opposite party No. 1 in the said complaint levelled accusation against the petitioners that they being the employers had failed to pay contributions for different periods in contraventions of the provi sions of Section 6 of the Act, 1952. Thus, they are liable for punishment for their deliberate failure in complying with the provisions of the Act. Immediate ly, after receipt of the complaints the learned Addi tional Chief Judicial Magistrate seems to have issued notices against these petitioners.

( 4 ) THESE petitioners, on the contrary, have taken the plea that their part of contributions payable towards the Employees' share could not be cleared off in due time because of acute financial stringency of the Company. There was never any deliberate attempt on behalf of the petitioners to avoid payment of their share. But the company having already paid its share of contributions towards Employees' Provident Fund, these batch of cases should be quashed.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing, no dispute has been raised at the bar that the company had defaulted in clearing its contributions towards the Employees' Provident Fund in time and, further, it appears from submission of the petitioners that after the institution of batch of cases, the company has already cleared off its shares of contributions. But now the sole question falls within the narrow compass for consideration is whether subsequent payment of contributions would absolve the petitioners from their criminal liability.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Milan Mukherjee, argued with much vehemence that the intention of the petitioners' company should be taken into consideration since it has already paid the amount. Therefore, there was no deliberate latch or remiss for avoiding payment of the said amount. In an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the validity of those contentions need not be examined in detail. If those contentions are raised before the lower Court it may be well to examine the same in proper perspective. Any finding on this submission will be premature and, therefore, it is needless to discuss this submission at length.

( 7 ) THE pivotal issue arises in this case as to a proceeding initiated at the instance of the opposite party No. 1 could be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code. In this regard the apex Court in its decision (State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 Supp 1 SCC 334 : 1992 Cri LJ 527) has exhaustively considered after having referred to a number of decisions and held that the limitation in exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Con stitution or under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings at the stage of F. I. R. is only with a view to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In an another decision the Supreme Court (Janata Dal v. H. S. Choudhury, reported in 1992 (4) SCC 305) : 1993 Cri LJ 600 h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document