Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C.DOSHI
Nityaranjan Pyarelal Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 60 of 2018 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409 and 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The allegations in short as narrated in FIR are to the effect that the applicants are alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.47,06,332/-, being provident fund contribution of its employees, by not depositing the same with the office of Provident Fund Commissioner. As per the allegation, the said amount was used by the applicants for their personal use and thereby, they have committed the aforestated offences. Hence, present petition.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. KJ Panchal appearing for the petitioners referring to the judgments in cases of (1) Savindersing Bhatti Vs. State of Gujarat , Criminal Misc. Application No.8949 of 2010 (2) BR Daga, Managing Director, Air Control and Che
A prosecution may be quashed when the defendant has rectified the underlying offense and pursuing charges serves no effective purpose.
The special law governing Provident Fund contributions prevails over the general law, and the absence of mens rea can be a decisive factor in determining criminal liability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mens rea and dishonest intention are essential for offenses under Sec. 409 of the IPC, and the proceedings cannot be continued against an ....
Directors of a company cannot be prosecuted for non-deposit of provident fund contributions as the company itself is the principal employer responsible for such obligations.
Prosecution under S.409 IPC is not barred by previous conviction under S.14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act as they constitute different offences.
Initiating criminal proceedings before the final adjudication of the dispute would be an abuse of the process of law. Criminal liability arises only after the failure to deposit the determined amount....
Limitations for prosecution under the Employees' Provident Funds Act must consider non-payment of contributions as a continuing offence.
Non-filing of returns under the Act is not a continuing offence if dues are settled, reinforcing prior judgments on the subject.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
