IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1849 of 2006() ----------------------------------- CC.23/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 3 ------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.ASWINI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, (A PROJECT OF SPECIALITY HOSPITAL GROUP (P) LTD.), GOVT. COLLEGE ROAD, NEDUMANGAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.K.VINOD KUMAR. 2. K.VINOD KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ASWINI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, (A PROJECT OF SPECIALITY HOSPITAL GROUP (P) LTD.), GOVT. COLLEGE ROAD, NEDUMANGAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.KURIAKOSE PETER MR.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.T.K. MOHANAN. R1 BY MR.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE,SC, P.F. , SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 2048 OF 2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1849 of 2006 ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.3606/2006 IN CRL. MC.NO.1849/2006 CLOSED 09/10/2009. SD/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.Nos. 1849, 2048, 2054, 2057, 2084, 2085, 2086, 2087, 2088, 2089, 2090, 2091, 2096, 2097 & 2102 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009. ORDER In all these 15 petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prayer made by the common petitioners is to quash the proceedings initiated against them by respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1995. 2. I do not propose to refer to the allegations made against the petitioners by respondent No.1, Enforcement Officer, under the Employees' Provident Fund Organizations, Thiruvananthapuram. Suffice it to say that the gravamen of the charge is that petitioners had failed to remit the contributions, both employer's and employees', to the Fund, administrative charges etc. 3. When these petitions were taken up for consideration on September 16, 2009 it was brought to my notice that the petitioners had remitted the entire dues except interest and penalty, as provided under Section 7Q and 14B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were prepared to remit interest and penalty as well, in addition to whatever other charges that they may be liable to pay, if such a demand is made by the complainant. 4. It is on record that petitioners had thereafter remitted further sums towards interest and penalty by way of damages as contemplated Crl.MC.1849/06 & connected cases. 2 under Sections 7Q and 14B. In short, all the dues payable under the Act and Scheme including interest and damages except the legal charges have already been remitted by the petitioners. 5. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submits that the Organization is prepared to consider the request if any that may be made by the petitioners for withdrawing the prosecution against them, provided they pay the legal charges to the tune of Rs.7600/-. Learned standing counsel has made available a copy of the communication received by him (KR/LC/HC 651/Crl.MC.1849/06/09. Dated 6/10/2009) from the organisation in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are prepared to remit the above sum also on any date that this Court may fix. 7. The short question is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the petitioners should be relegated to the Organization to consider the question whether the prosecution has to be withdrawn or not. Learned standing counsel submits that the Organization is prepared to withdraw the above 15 complaints against the petitioners since the petitioners have already remitted the entire dues, but only on condition that they remit the legal charges also. 8. In this context it may be noticed that the administration and control of petitioner No.1 hospital was taken over by the present management on April 28, 2005. The assessment involved in all the 15 complaints admittedly relates to the period between March 2003 to February 2006. It is true that a short period after April 2005 falls within Crl.MC.1849/06 & connected cases. 3 the period of administration of the present petitioners. But still keeping in view that the major portion of the liability fell within the administrative period of the previous management, I am of the view that petitioners need not be relegated to the Organization once again. I am persuaded to take the above view, especially since admittedly the petitioners have already remitted the entire dues and also since the Organisation is not averse to the idea of withdrawing the prosecution. The petitioners have also agreed to remit the legal charges of Rs.7600/- forthwith. In that view of the matter the proceedings pending against the petitioners on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No.II, Nedumangad in C.C.23/2006 to C.C.37/2006 are quashed. Crl.M.Cs are allowed. 9. Petitioners shall remit a sum of Rs.7600/- to respondent No.1 on or before October 29, 2009 failing which it will be open to the Organization to recover the same. However it is made clear that this judgment shall not be treated as a precedent since this order has been passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.