1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1519/2008 PRADEEP KUMAR MALHOTRA & OTHERS V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF ORDER ::: 01/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. G.R.Punia, for Petitioner (s). Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor. Preferring instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., petitioners request quashing of proceedings No.122/00 against them for the offence under Sections 406 and 409, IPC, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that (1) offence is alleged to have been committed by the company and the petitioners, under no way, were/are responsible for the business of the company. (2) Petitioners were only sleeping directors of the company and never participated in the activity of the company. (3) No specific act attributed to the petitioners in FIR and even in charge-sheet. (4) Against company and petitioners in a proceedings under Section 138, N.I. Act, petitioners were discharged for similar reasons that is of being sleeping partners. (5) Amount alleged to have been collected, also deposited by the company. (6) Embezzlement or misappropriation of contribution of the employees committed by the petitioners. Citing 2003 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 170, Madanlal & others v. Bhanwarlal, learned counsel submitted that in other criminal proceedings under Section 138, N.I .Act held to be not responsible and then in other criminal proceedings of the same period too, petitioners cannot be held liable so the proceedings deserve to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is a matter of non-deposit of ESI contribution collected from the employees and above arguments are on questions of facts. 2 Considered arguments and perused copies of the charge-sheet made available for perusal. On the allegations of not crediting (to the concerned department) contribution of employees deducted and collected from their wages, is FIR and charge-sheet submitted. The company is employer and other allegations are – cognizance for the offences of Sections 406 and 409, IPC, on 2.6.00 and it does not appear that any order framing of charge yet is - so at the early stages of the proceedings, the petitioners shall be having all the opportunities to put up their case before the trial Court and there is no reason to assume that the trial Court shall not be considering all points and arguments as may be raised by the petitioners, so alternative appropriate remedy is available. The petition, having no force is rejected. The petitioners shall be free to raise all objections before the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (C. M. TOTLA), J.