- (1.) Heard Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Ghosh, who appears as the learned Counsel for the opposite party/State and Mr. Rakshit, who appears on behalf of the provident fund authority. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that immediately after initiation of the instant case, the petitioners deposited the entire amount in respect of which the allegation of default in payment of the provident fund amount was made. Mr. Ganguly has referred to copies of challans in support of his contention that such deposits were duly made. Mr. Rakshit on behalf of the provident fund authority accepts cash such payment that was duly made. In fact after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, it appears that an amount of more than Rs. 80,000/- was deposited - of course, subsequent of filing of the case. Question may naturally arise as to whether there is any justification for continuation of the instant proceeding in the changed circumstances. No doubt the allegation made in the complaint cannot be white-washed by any subsequent payment. But the fact remains that the offence relates to failure to deposit the amount for a certain period. Mr. Ganguly has referred to the decision in the case of Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 580 in support of his contention that there can be no justification for pursuing the matter any further. Mr. Ganguly has further referred to the decision of the learned single Bench of this Court in the case of Howrah Motor Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Samair Kumar Das reported in (2004)4 Cal HN 291. In the said case the learned Court held that "having regard to the fact that the entire dues have been paid there should not be any justification for a continuance of the proceeding".
(2.) In fact the learned Court in connection with the said case referred to a number of other decisions of the Apex Court.
(3.) Having regard to such relevant facts and materials and in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to hold that while purpose has been fulfilled. The question, of continuance of the proceeding, in my opinion, will be an abuse of the process of Court. As such in exercise of this Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 76 of 2006 now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta be quashed.;