IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4385 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.98/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA CRIME NO.381/04 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. P.P.MUKUNDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MADHAV NIVAS, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN 682 026 (CHAIRMAN, MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM, JANMABHOOMI). 2. K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, MADHAV NIVAS, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN 682 026 (MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM, JANMABHOOMI). 3. T.V.SREEDHARAN, MADHAV NIVAS, ELAMAKKARA COCHIN 682 026 (GENERAL MANAGER, MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM, JANMABHOOMI). 4. N.SIVADASAN, S/O.PARAMESWARA MENON, SAKTHI NIVAS, TC 37/1840, MITHRAMANDAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023 (GENERAL MANAGER, MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM, JANMABHOOMI, COCHIN 682 026). BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, COCHIN 682 017. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4385 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The crux of the charge is that there was non compliance with the provisions of the said Act relating to payment of dues etc. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have now come before this Court with a prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the reason ? The only contention raised is that the entire liability under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act has subsequently been discharged by payment. It is further pointed out that the company had come to this Court and another Bench of this Court as per Annexure- A3 judgment had granted instalment facility to discharge the liability. The said order has been scrupulously complied with and no liability does exist now. In these circumstances it is prayed that the prosecutions may be quashed. Crl.M.C. No.4385 of 2008 2 3. It is now well settled that the mere fact that civil liability had subsequently been discharged, is no reason to quash a criminal prosecution under a welfare legislation like the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Annexure-A3 judgment also only shows that recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance awaiting compliance of the direction to pay the amount in instalments. It does not speak about the culpable liability at all. 4. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances which can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner must approach the authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The request for withdrawal, needless to say, must be considered by such authorities. Discharge of liability can of course be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance. 5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-