A second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is not maintainable after the dismissal of the first complaint as withdrawn, as it amounts to an abuse of process of court.

K.S.Kumaran, J.

1. I am disposing of the following criminal miscellaneous petitions along with Criminal Misc. No. 1625-M of 1996 by means of this order since the same questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions :-

1. Criminal Misc. No. 1626(A) of 1996

2. Criminal Misc. No. 1628 of 1996

3. Criminal Misc. No. 1630 of 1996

4. Criminal Misc. No. 1632 of 1996

5. Criminal Misc. No. 1634 of 1996

6. Criminal Misc. No. 1636 of 1996

7. Criminal Misc. No. 1638 of 1996

8. Criminal Misc. No. 1640 of 1996

9. Criminal Misc. No. 1642 of 1996

2. The Provident Fund Inspector, Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab (respondent herein) filed complaints against the two petitioners herein namely, (1) Shri Supinder Singh, and (2) M/s Indra Motors (P) Limited, Kurali through Supinder Singh, the Managing Director, on 16.12.1994 either under para-38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, read with Section 14(1A) of Section 14-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or under para 8 of the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 read with Sections 6-C, 14(1B) and 14-A of Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant allegations in the complaint are found extracted in the present petitions themselves and are as follows :-

3. M/s Indra Motors (P) Limited, Kurali is an establishment within the meaning of the Act. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952; and the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, framed under the said Act are applicable to the said establishment. It has been allotted Code No. PN/1424. It is situated at Kurali. The first accused is the person incharge of the establishment and is responsible for the conduct of its business and is required to comply with the provisions of the said Act and the Schemes. Under paras 30 and 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the accused are required to pay employees and employers share of the contribution to the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund in respect of the employees together with administrative charges, for every month within 15 days. But they have not paid the statutory dues for the months specified in the respective complaints. Thus, they have committed offences under the provisions mentioned above.

4. These complaints presented on 16.12.1994 were taken on file and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roop Nagar (Ropar) ordered the accused to be summoned.

5. The accused have, therefore, come forward with these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the respective criminal complaints, the summoning orders and the consequential proceedings on the ground that earlier on the same facts and same cause of action, a similar complaint was filed before the Additional C.J.M., against the very same accused/petitioners herein, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.1994 and, therefore, a fresh complaint once again on the very same facts and cause of action against the very same persons is not only not maintainable, but is also an abuse of process of Court.

6. The respondent has filed replies in all these petitions alleging that the trial Court has only summoned the petitioners to appear before it, that it is only an interlocutory order and, therefore, this Court should not, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quash the same. The second ground urged by the respondent is that the offence complained of in the complaint is a continuing offence and, therefore, there is no bar for filing a subsequent complaint as fresh cause of action accrues on each and every day. Yet another plea raised by the respondent is that on the previous complaint, the Additional C.J.M. had only dismissed the complaint as withdrawn but had not acquitted the accused. Therefore, according to the respondent, there is no ground for quashing the fresh complaint and the consequential proceedings.

7. I have heard the counsel for bo