The court clarified that mere managerial status does not confer liability under the Employees Provident Funds Act without active involvement in company operations.

ORDER

The petitioner is the third accused in S.T. No.

2486/2005 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur (‘Trial Court', for short), which has been registered on the basis of Annexure A private complaint filed by the second respondent alleging that the petitioner, along with the accused 1 and 2, have committed the offences punishable under Sections 14 (2) and 14(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952, and paragraph No.

42(d) of the Employees Pension Scheme.

2. The petitioner has filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, inter-alia, contending that, even if the allegations in Annexure A complaint are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the above offences against the petitioner. The petitioner was only the General Manager of the first accused company. There is no allegation that the petitioner was in charge of the day today affairs of the company. By Annexure B order, this Court has quashed two cases, out of the eight cases, that was registered against the petitioner on the same set of allegations on complaints filed by the second respondent.

Hence, Annexure A complaint may be quashed.

3. The substratum of the prosecution case in Annexure A complaint is that: the petitioner was the working partner of the M/s Golden Chits & Finance Company (first accused). The petitioner, along with the second accused, had defaulted and had failed to pay the members and employees contribution to the Employees Provident Fund and Employees Pension Fund of the employees of the first accused company, and the administrative charges for the period from April 2004 to June 2004. Thus, the accused persons have committed the above offences.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as two out of the eight cases filed by the second respondent, on the same identical allegations, have been quashed by this Court by Annexure B order, the present complaint may also be quashed. Likewise, the entire amount due to the second respondent has been recovered. Moreover, the petitioner was only the General Manager of the first accused. Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent did not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. On a consideration of the contentions, that the petitioner was only the General Manager of the first accused, that there is no specific allegation that the petitioner was in charge of the day today affairs of the company and that the prosecution against the petitioner in two connected crimes have been quashed by Annexure B order, which has attained finality, I am convinced that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the above complaint.

In the above circumstances, I allow the Crl. M.C., by quashing Annexure A complaint and all further proceedings in S.T. No. 2486/2005 of the Trial Court, as against the petitioner.

Sd/-