V.KANAGARAJ J. - (1.)All the above Criminal Original Petitions are filed by the petitioner, who is accused No. 4 in C.C. Nos. 97 to 119 and 121 to 133 of 2000 filed by the respondent on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Udumalpet, praying to quash the said proceedings as against him.
(2.)On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the said criminal complaints before the Court below as against the petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Section 14(1-A) read with Section 14-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The case of the complainant is that accused No. 2 to accused No. 4 therein are in charge of accused No. 1 firm, viz., Kornminnaar Textiles (P) Limited, Pethappampatti, Udumalpet Taluk, which is an "establishment" within the meaning of the said Act; that under Sections 6 and 6-A of the Act read with paragraphs 30 and 38 of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, the accused are required to pay the members and employers contributions to the employees provident fund and employees pension fund in respect of the employees of the said establishment together with administrative charges within fifteen days of the close of every month; that in spite of several requests, the accused failed to pay the contributions and thus committed the offence. On such allegations, the respondent has filed various complaints for the alleged non-contribution to the fund for different periods.
(3.)When all the matters are pending trial, the petitioner/accused No. 4 has come forward to file the above Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash the same thereby submitting that the complaints are not maintainable against him since he is neither a director nor the beneficiary of the accused No. 1-company; that he resigned from the accused No. 1-company on February 27, 1997; that the Company Law Board has issued Form No. 32 on February 27, 1997 itself, which is a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and per se admissible in the Court of law and therefore the allegation that he is responsible for the affairs of the accused No. 1-company is false, frivolous and vexatious and hence the continuation of proceedings as against him would amount to abuse of process of law.