MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) THE challenge in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by the petitioners is to the order dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P -7), by means of which, they were summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to face the trial for the commission of offence punishable under Paragraph 7 and 8 of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 6 -C, 14(1 -A) and 14 -A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the order dated 5.5.2011 (Annexure P -8), by virtue of which, the Revisional Court has dismissed their revision petition.
(2.) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy, involved in the instant petition is identical to the one, raised in Criminal Misc.No.M -25357 of 2009 titled as M/s. Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which has already been decided by this Court, by way of order dated July 06, 2011.
(3.) TO begin with, learned counsell for the respondent was somewhat reluctant to admit, but after going through the indicated judgment, he acknowledged this fact. Meaning thereby, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered and is liable to be disposed of in the same terms of the judgment dated July 6, 2011, of a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Daya Chaudhary, J.), rendered in Criminal Misc No.M -25357 of 2009, which is placed on record as Annexure "PX '' for ready reference, the operative part of which is, as under: - ''As per Section 468 of the Cr. P.C., the period of limitation is one year if it is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. In the present case, the offence under Section 14(2) of the Act, read with para 76(b) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 has been alleged to be committed and for contravention of the said provisions, the imprisonment for a term of one year has been provided. The complaint has been filed after a delay of more than 27 years, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 468 of Cr. P.C. Moreover, it is not a case of deliberate violation of the Act as the order for winding up of the company was there and remained in liquidation as per orders passed by the Court and the assets as well as the records of the Company were taken over by the Official Liquidator. The record of the Company was not with the petitioner company and it cannot be said that the act committed was deliberate. The incident pertains to the year 1981 -82 whereas the complaint was filed before the Court on 8.12.2008 i.e. after a period of 27 years, which is not maintainable. Subsequently, as per orders passed by Delhi high Court, the amount in dispute along with interest was deposited by the petitioner company and the same was also accepted by the complainant. Even in response to notices sent by the complainant, letters were written by the petitioner company and it was informed that as the record was not with the petitioner company and because of that reason the said amount was not deposited. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent are not applicable in the present case as the act of the petitioner company was not deliberate and the amount could not deposited and was deposited alongwith interest subsequently. At the most, it can be a case of penalty only and not of filing the criminal complaint and delay in itself is a ground of quashing of complaint as well as summoning order as the complaint has been filed after a lapse of 21 years, which is not maintainable. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and impugned criminal complaint No. 2569/2008 dated 8.12.2008 and summoning order dated 8.12.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad are quashed. However, the complainant is at liberty to impose penalty as provided under law." In this view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned orders (Annexures P -7 and P -8) are hereby quashed in the same terms of the judgment dated July 6, 2011 of this Court in M/s. Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.'s case (supra).;