1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 541/2010 Brigadier Ram Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan Date: 29.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. M.K. Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the accused petitioner Brigadier Ram Narayan has prayed to quash and set aside the order of taking cognizance dated 15th April, 2004 rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Alwar as also the order dated 11th June, 2004 passed by Additional Session Judge, No.1, Alwar in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Skipping unnecessary details, the facts of the case, in nub, are thus: That one Ramnath Saraswat, Enforcement Officer working in the office of Central Provident Fund, Alwar lodged the FIR at the police station M.I.A., Alwar stating that Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. later on changed its name as Lords Chloro Alkali Ltd., a public limited company, deducted the 2 amount of CPF from the salary of the employees for the period with effect from June, 1998 to February, 1999 but did not deposit the same with P.F. Commissioner and thus, the company committed an offence under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC. 3. The police having registered the case, commenced the investigation and after conclusion of investigation, the police gave final report in the case as no evidence was found against the company for the aforesaid offences. The court issued a notice to the complainant, whereupon the complainant filed a protest petition and on this protest petition, having recorded the statements of the witnesses, took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC vide its order dated 4th June, 2001 and proceeded against the company and its Directors. This order was impugned in the court of Session and the learned Sessions court set aside this order and remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate again took the cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of IPC vide order dated 15th April, 2004, and the same was again impugned in the court of Sessions and the 3 learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Alwar in its revisional jurisdiction dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 11th June, 2004. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that both the orders dated 15th April, 2004 and 11th June, 2004 were impugned by Modi Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. and others, by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 801/2004, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the petition in part and quashed and set aside the orders dated 15th April, 2004 and 11th June, 2004 in respect of petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 namely Dr. D.K. Modi, B.B. Srivastava, Kedar Nath Modi, C.L. Agrawal, Kapil Nath Modi, R.K. Arora and S.C. Bhargava. The petitioner at that time had gone abroad, so he could not impugn these orders but now, he has come back and his case is akin to the case of petitioners nos. 2 to 8 of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 801/2004 and thus, the order of issuing process to the petitioner should also be quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed in view of order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 801/2004. 8. In view of the above, the misc. petition is partly allowed and the order of issuing process against the accused petitioner vide order dated 15th April, 2004 as also order dated 11th June, 2004 passed by Additional Session Judge in its revisional jurisdiction, are ordered to be quashed and set aside. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 4