S. THANGARAJ, J.

( 1 ) - These petitions coming on for orders on Friday the 20th day of August 1999 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. K. Sridharan Advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions and of Mr. S. Shanagha Velayuthan, Advocate for the 1st respondent in all the petitions and of Mr. V. Vibhiahanan Advocate for the 2nd respondent in all the petitions and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following order: The petitioners/accused 2 to 6 in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, Erode District have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the said case pending against them.

( 2 ) ONE Anandasekaran Selvarajan filed a complaint against the petitioners herein and the second respondent for offences under Section 120-B, 193, 196, 199 and 216. I. P. C. and Sections 14 (1-A) and 14 (2) of the Employees. Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram has taken it on file in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 and issued process to the accused to appear before the said Court. Hence the present petition.

( 3 ) THE first respondent/complainant Anandasekaran Selvarajan was working in Bishop Thorp College, Dharapuram as Lecturer, second petitioner is the Chairman of the Governing Board of the said college that the third petitioner is the former Principal of the said college that the 4th petitioner is the Bursar of the said college and the 5th petitioner is one of the former Principal of the said college. The second respondent provident Fund Inspector, Erode filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram which was taken on file in S. T. C. No. 2358 of 1996 for offences under Sections 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the said Acton the allegation that the petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4 herein have collected provident fund amounts from the employees whereas they failed to contribute the employers share and also to deposit the said amount to the authorities concerned. The accused appeared before the said Court and pleaded, guilty for the said charges and the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the first petitioner each to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the petitioner Nos. 3, and 4 each to pay a fine of Rs. 1. 000/ -. The accused paid the fine and the proceedings were terminated on 30-1-1997 as per the endorsement of learned. Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. In the meantime, the college administration have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent herein, who was the Lecturer in the said college and during the pendency of the said proceedings the first respondent herein have filed the present complaint before learned Magistrate, Dharapuram.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have, raised many objections regarding the maintainability of the case pending before learned Magistrate. One of the main contentions of the petitioners is that the proceedings in S. T. C. No. 2858 of 1996 were terminated on 30-1-1997 and thereafter no case can be filed against them for the very same offences which would amount to double jeopardy. Learned Counsel for the first petitioner has argued that since the present complaint is filed by the complainant for not prosecuting the petitioners herein for all the offences committed by them and in doing so the Provident Fund Inspector who is the second respondent herein as a public servant has committed an offence and at the same time the other accused are liable for various offences for which they are liable but whereas the Provident Fund Inspector had wantonly omitted in order to prevent prosecution against the other petitioners.

( 5 ) WHEN we see the nature of the complaint which is pending in C. C. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Dharapuram it is for the offences which are wantonly left out in the earlier case. The Police Officer while investigating any offence can file a final report under Section 173 (2)