2025:BHC-AS:56741-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3013 OF 2024

1. Mr. Shammee Swaran Salaria )

@ Shami Salariya ) Age: 42 years, Occupation: Business ) R/at: Sandora Bungalow ) A.B. Nair Road, Near Juhu Post Office ) Juhu, Mumbai-400 049. )

)

2. Mr. Bachan Nidhan Salariya

)

@ Bachan Salariya

)

Age: 57 years, Occupation: Business

)

R/at: Sandora Bungalow

)

A.B. Nair Road, Near Juhu Post Office

) …Petitioners

Juhu, Mumbai-400 049.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra )

(At the instance of ) D. N. Nagar Police Station). )

2. Ajay Jagannathji Ganveer )

Age: 53 years, ) Occupation: Enforcement Officer ) R/at: 401, Sector-12, ) Millennium Orchid, )

Kharghar Navi Mumbai-410210. ) … Respondents

-----

Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni along with Mr. Sagar Wakale and Mr. R.S. Pere

for the Petitioners.

Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, Addl. P. P. For the Respondent No.1-

State.

Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. Santosh Choudhari, P.I., D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.

Mr. Vaibhav Khade, P.S.I, D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.

----

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 10^th DECEMBER, 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 17^th DECEMBER, 2025.

Judgement (Per Sandesh D. Patil, J) :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, learned Addl. P. P. for the Respondent No.1-State, waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1- State. Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.2

4. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. bearing C. R. No.0553 of 2024 dated 04/06/2024 registered at the instance of the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners with D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai City and proceedings in CC No.3318/PW/2025 pending before learned JMFC Andheri, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

5. The case of the prosecution is that, the Complainant who was working as a Provident Fund Inspector in Provident Fund Department noticed that the Petitioners had not deposited the amount of Provident Fund of more than 20 workers in their company in the acccount of the Government. He further noticed that the Petitioners had deducted the Provident Fund from the salary of the employees amounting to Rs.23,60,241/-. The Complainant therefore, filed the complaint against the Petitioners and its Directors under the provision of Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of IPC bearing C. R. No. 0533 of 2024 with D.N. Nagar, Police Station on 04/06/2024.

6. The Petitioners have filed the present Petition for quashing of the aforesaid C.R. It is the case of the Petitioners that prior to registration of the F.I.R., Complainant had paid substantial amount of the PPF deducted by them to the Petitioners, in the account of the Government. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that although some amount was paid after three days from filing of the F.I.R. however, that was immediately paid to the Government and that on 07/06/2024, the office of the Provident Fund had granted ‘No Due Certificate’ to the Petitioners vide letter dated 07.06.2024 stating, that the entire amount has been paid by the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that even on plain reading of the said F.I.R., no offence under Section 406 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that in any event since the entire amount was already paid there is no point in asking the Petitioners to face the trial. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further stated, that there is no provision for compounding of the said offences and therefore, Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. He lastly stated that there was no intention on the part of the Petitio