JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of complaint dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) and for quashing of summoning order dated 01.12.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and all consequential proceeding arising therefrom.

2. The facts, as evident from the case, are that the petitioners were the partners of M/s Kapsons Wardrobe. They were alleged to have not filed the returns under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF Act) for the year 2010-2011 qua the establishment called M/s Kapsons Wardrobe. As a result, the EPF Department initiated criminal complaint against the petitioners under Section 14(2) of the EPF Act. The petitioners were summoned by the concerned Court. It is to challenge the said complaint and the summoning order that the petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

3. Arguing the case, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no default on the part of the petitioners. In fact, the entity M/s Kapsons Wardrobe was closed by the petitioners in June, 2010 and the employees working in the said establishment were absorbed in M/s Kapsons Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh. The returns qua the said employees were duly filed for the new entity M/s Kapsons Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh. The petitioners were called by the complainant in November, 2011, then the detail regarding closure of earlier entity and the adjustment of the employees in the new entity was also duly disclosed by the petitioners. Not only that, the returns regarding the employees which were taken from the earlier establishment to the new establishment; were also filed for the period, for which, the default is alleged in the complaint qua the previous entity. Accordingly, it is submitted that, in fact, there is no default. At the best, it was technical deficiency in not informing the department qua the closure of M/s Kapsons Wardrobe and not submitting the NIL return qua that entity well in time. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that earlier the respondent-department/complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioners for imposing damages under Section 14(b) of the Act. In the said proceedings, the petitioners were burdened with the damages amounting to Rs.11,970/-. The said amount also stands paid by the petitioners in 2015 itself. Still further it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have been facing the agony of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-department for more than 10 years now, therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-complainant has submitted that the petitioners were duty bound to file the various returns under various provisions of the Act, details of which have been mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. Since the petitioners had defaulted in complying with the statutory provision, therefore, the complaint was rightly lodged by the competent authority. The prosecution of the petitioners for the said offence is of strict liability; arising only from the default in filing the returns, per se. Therefore, the petitioners have rendered themselves liable for punishment.

5. This Court had stayed the proceedings vide order dated 02.12.2013 passed in the connected matter i.e. CRM-M-40323-2013. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned repeatedly for the one reason or the other. As a result, about 10 years have passed during pendency of the present petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds substance