Sonia Gokani, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Ltd. has prayed for quashing and setting aside the first information report being IIC. R. No. 146 of 2008 registered with J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner. The present petition has arisen in the following factual background:--

"2.1. The petitioner is the authorised Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Vadodara Branch, having its registered office at Landmark, Race Course Road, Vadodara.

2.2. An order came to be passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on May 13, 2008, which is alleged not to have been complied with by the present petitioner. The first information report alleges that M/s. ABB Ltd. has defaulted in Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance contribution and inspection charges for the period between October, 2006 to November, 2007. Resultantly, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, issued such direction on May 13, 2008 under the provision of Section 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the petitioner Bank was directed to transfer the amount mentioned in such order to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vadodara. On the ground that there is noncompliance of such direction resulting into attraction of ingredients of Section 78(1) of the Act, the present first information report is filed and, therefore, the present petition is filed seeking quashment of the same."

2. At the time of issuance of Rule and the notice as to interim relief, this Court granted ad interim relief in terms of paragraph 6C and thereby, during the pendency of the petition, further proceedings of the first information report being IIC. R. No. 146 of 2008 registered with J.R Road Police Station, Vadodara, have been stayed.

3. The learned Advocate Mr. Chandresh Patel appearing for the learned Advocate Mr. Dharmesh V. Shah has urged that the present petitioner being a Branch Manager in no manner has flouted or disobeyed the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner nor has he flouted in any manner the provision of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the powers of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. However, when the petitioner had no holding of any amount of M/s. ABB Ltd. with it and the amount in the account was notional, availing limit to the Bank, the petitioner could not have transferred any amount to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He urged, therefore, to intervene and invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted that within a very short period, the Tribunal had granted stay and that also should weigh with the Court and this Court should quash the first information report.

4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has fairly submitted that the provision of Section 187 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of mens rea and the ingredients of such provision would be attracted if there is an intentional disobedience. She has urged the Court to pass appropriate orders on the basis of facts and on applying law to such facts. She, however, has urged that the stringent provision made under Section 8F of the Act is in the interest of the employees and, therefore, any Authority if is found disobeying the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, shall have to be dealt with stringently.

5. Upon thus hearing both the sides, at the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act and particularly, Section 8F of the Act which suggests all other modes of recovery. It is to be noticed that Section 8 of the Act provides for recovery of money due from the employers.

5.1 Section 8A of the Act is in relation to th