Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
M/s Bokaro Steel Plant and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No.106 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2023
EPF - Criminal Proceedings - Employee’s Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976, Section 14 (2) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Para-76 (b) and (d) of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme - The court discussed the offenses under the Employee’s Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976, and the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme. It highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that the accused must be a natural or juridical person for summons to be issued, and the necessity of specific allegations for vicarious liability.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought to quash criminal proceedings related to non-compliance with the Employee’s Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The accused were alleged to have failed to submit required returns and ownership details, leading to cognizance of the offenses by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn for one petitioner and quashed the proceedings for the other petitioner, holding that the offenses were not made out against the latter and continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the criminal proceedings, the necessity of specific allegations for vicarious liability, and the applicability of the legal provisions to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused must be a natural or juridical person for summons to be issued, and specific allegations are necessary for determining vicarious liability.
Final Decision: The criminal proceedings against one petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn, and for the other petitioner, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.125 of 2016 [Complaint Case (EPF) No.125 of 2016] including the order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under cognizance of the offence under Para-29 (d) of the Employee’s Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976, read with Section 14 (2) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under Para-76 (b) and (d) of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme read with Section 14 (2) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has been taken and summons were issued to the petitioners, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the complaint was filed by the Enforcement Officer/Provident Fund Inspector, Bokaro alleging therein that the accused person of the complaint had to submit return in prescribed format before the Regional Office of Employee’s Fund Organization, Ranchi within time but they failed to comply with the provision enshrined in paragraph 8 (1) of the Employee’s Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 read with Section- 6C (4) (a) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 which is an offence punishable under para-29 (d) of the Employee’s Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 read with Section 14 (2) of Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and also failed to submit the return of ownership in Form-5A in contravention of para-36A of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme which is an offence punishable under para-76 (b) & (d) of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme read with Section- 14 (2) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952.
4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro prima facie found the case punishable for the said offences and took cognizance thereof vide order dated 12.02.2016 against the Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro and M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the instant Cr.M.P. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.125 of 2016 [Complaint Case (EPF) No.125 of 2016] including the order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under cognizance of the offence under Para-29 (d) of the Employee’s Deposited Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976, read with Section 14 (2) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and under Para-76 (b) and (d) of Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme read with Section 14 (2) of the Employee’s Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is taken and summons were issued to the petitioners, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in respect of the petitioner No.1 namely M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, represented through John Tapan Kongari S/O Late P.L. Kongari aged about 54 years, presently working as General Manager Law, SAIL Bokaro Steel Plant, resident of Quarter No.1021, Sector 5A P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Sector 6, District Bokaro and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Cr.M.P. so far as it relates to the petitioner No.1 with liberty to raise all the grounds before the appropriate court at appropriate stage.
6. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner No.1 to raise all the grounds taken in this Cr.M.P. before the concerned court at appropriate stage.
7. So far as petitioner No.2 namely Pawan Kumar Singh S/O Late A.P. Singh Aged about 62 years resident of Quarter No.2030, Sector 5A, P.O. B.S. City,
The legal point established is that for summons to be issued, the accused must be a natural or juridical person, and specific allegations are necessary for determining vicarious liability.
The court ruled that allegations against non-existent posts do not constitute a basis for criminal proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of specific accusations against individuals for liability.
The main legal point established is the necessity of impleading the company as an accused in the complaint case, the application of the deeming clause under Section 86A of the Act, 1948, and the doct....
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on directors solely by virtue of their positions; specific allegations of wrongdoing must exist for criminal liability to be established.
The burden lay upon the complainant to establish that the respondents are the employers in M/s Baptists Senior Secondary School and were legally bound to make contribution in the provident fund of th....
The court quashed the complaint against EPF and ESI officers, finding it malicious and aimed at evading statutory liabilities, emphasizing protections under the EPF and ESI Acts.
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
