The court concluded that the charges under IPC Sections 408 and 420 are inapplicable to a managing partner not classified as a clerk/servant, leading to a quashing of proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.11503/2019 arising out of Crime No.349/2018 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2, who is an Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, filed a complaint to the effect that the petitioner who is the Managing Partner of M/s. Social DNA Labs LLP had not deposited the requisite provident fund amount of Rs.3,17,796/- towards the employees working in the M/s. Social DNA Labs LLP partnership for the period from July, 2017 to May, 2018 in its provident fund account, thereby committing offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC .

5. In pursuance of the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and initiated the present proceedings, which are assailed in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned charge sheet in order to point out that the petitioner not being a clerk/servant of the aforesaid M/s. Social DNA Labs LLP., Section 408 of the IPC would not be applicable to the petitioner who is a Managing Partner of the M/s. Social DNA Labs LLP., which is a limited liability partnership firm. Consequently, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

7. It is also pointed out that before the learned Magistrate itself, respondent No.2 - complainant has filed a memo dated 25.03.2024 in that the entire provident fund amount had been actually deposited by the petitioner and consequently, continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

8. As stated supra, respondent No.2 - complainant having been served with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a Managing Partner of the M/s. Social DNA Labs LLP partnership firm, Section 408 of the IPC evidently would not apply to the petitioner, since he is not a clerk/servant as contemplated in the said provision and consequently, the impugned proceedings in relation to the said offences under Section 408 of the IPC , would deserve to be quashed.

10. Insofar as the allegations under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, apart from the fact that the complaint, the charge sheet as well as the other material on record would not disclose the commission of the said offence by the petitioner, who is not established to have any mens rea before the aforesaid non-deposit, the memo dated 25.03.2024 filed by respondent No.2 - complainant is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had deposited the entire provident fund amount in relation to its employees and consequently, continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would also amount to abuse of the process of the law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i) The criminal petition is allowed; and ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.11503/2019 registered by Whitefield Police Station in Crime No.349/2018 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner st