Measures M.P. Security Force vs Engorcement Officer

1 MCRC-25023-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21720 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjaria and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocate for the
respondent.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6629 of 2022
LAKHAN LAL SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR
Appearance:
Ms.Poonam Singh - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Devendra Singh Baghel - Advocate for the respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21488 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

2 MCRC-25023-2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22281 of 2023

MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22709 of 2023
MEASURES M.P.SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22710 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22711 of 2023
MEASURES M.P.SECURITY FORCE
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

3 MCRC-25023-2023
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22936 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22939 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22942 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22956 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

4 MCRC-25023-2023
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22961 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23518 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SESCURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23558 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23559 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

5 MCRC-25023-2023
Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23560 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23561 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23565 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23577 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

6 MCRC-25023-2023
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23581 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23586 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23588 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23592 of 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

7 MCRC-25023-2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23596 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICCER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23603 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23610 of 2023
MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

8 MCRC-25023-2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23621 of 2023

MEASURES MP SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23989 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECUTIRY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23990 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23991 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

9 MCRC-25023-2023
respondent.

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23992 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23994 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24241 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25023 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE
Versus
ENGORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

10 MCRC-25023-2023
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25822 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25832 of 2023
MEASURE M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25838 of 2023
MEASURES M.P. SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS
Versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Abhishek Arjariya and Shri Rahul Chourasiya - Advocates for
respondent.
ORDER
As the issue involved in all these petitions is common and identical,
they are heard and decided together. For the shake of convenience the facts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

11 MCRC-25023-2023
are being taken from M.Cr.C. No.6629/2022.

The aforesaid petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal arising out of complaint cases
instituted by the Provident Fund Inspector of the Employees Provident Fund
Organisation. The prosecution has been initiated alleging violation of the
statutory provisions contained in the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder.
2. The factual background giving rise to the present proceedings reveals
that petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of an establishment operating in the
name and style of "M.P. Security Force", which was engaged in supplying
manpower and security personnel to various government and semi-
government institutions on contractual basis. The establishment was
admittedly covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and had been allotted a code
number by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. Being an employer
within the meaning of the Act of 1952, the petitioners were under a statutory
obligation to deduct the employees' contribution towards provident fund and
deposit the same along with the employer's share within the time prescribed
under the Act and the schemes framed thereunder.
3. From the material placed before this Court, it appears that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

12 MCRC-25023-2023
authorities of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation conducted an

inspection and initiated inquiry proceedings under Section 7A of the Act of
1952 in respect of the petitioner establishment for the period commencing
from February 2008 to March 2012. During the course of such inquiry, it
was found that the establishment had failed to deposit provident fund
contributions within the stipulated period and that substantial amounts
representing employees' share as well as employer's share remained unpaid
for several months falling within the said period. The inquiry authority, after
examining the relevant records and hearing the establishment, determined the
amount payable by the petitioners and concluded that statutory defaults had
been committed in respect of the provident fund contributions.
4. Subsequent to the determination of the liability and upon examination
of the material on record, the competent authority granted sanction for
prosecution of the petitioners for offences punishable under the relevant
provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952. Thereafter the Provident Fund Inspector filed criminal complaints
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal alleging that the
petitioners had failed to deposit the statutory contributions within the
prescribed time and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 6,
14(1-A) and 14A of the Act of 1952 read with the relevant schemes framed
thereunder.
5. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the complaint and the
material accompanying the same, took cognizance of the offences and
directed issuance of process against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

13 MCRC-25023-2023
continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners have approached

this Court by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended
that the prosecution launched by the respondents is unsustainable in law for
the reason that the entire dues determined by the authorities have
subsequently been deposited by the establishment. It has been submitted that
the amount of Rs.1,76,76,311/- representing the provident fund dues has
already been paid and that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation has
acknowledged the liquidation of the dues. According to the petitioners, once
the statutory liability has been discharged and the dues have been paid, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unjustified and would
amount to misuse of the criminal process.
7. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioners that several
criminal complaints have been filed by the respondents on the basis of a
single inquiry report and therefore the prosecution is liable to be quashed. It
has also been submitted that the alleged defaults occurred due to financial
constraints faced by the establishment and delay in payment from the
principal employers to whom manpower services were supplied. The
petitioners have thus urged that the inherent powers of this Court should be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends
of justice.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

14 MCRC-25023-2023
placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund, 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 580, and Salib Alias Shalu Alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 194; in the case of Horticulture Experiment Station v.
Regional Provident Fund [Civil Appeal Nos. 2136/2012, 2121/2012,
2135/2012, 2141/2012, decided on 23.02.2022]; and also the judgment of
High Court of Madras in Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident
Fund, Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation [W.P. No.
184 of 1996 & W.M.P. No. 275 of 1996, decided on 25.10.2002]; the
judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation Officer v.
Bilaspur Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. & Another, 2022 SCC OnLine
Chh 635 [WPL No. 177 of 2013, decided on 05.04.2022]; Central Board of
Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through RPFC v.
Bilaspur Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. & Another, 2023 SCC OnLine
Chh 1737 [WA No. 249 of 2023, decided on 16.06.2023]; the judgment of
High Court of Karnataka in M.R. Joseph v. John Menezes, 2003 (6) DarLJ
163; and the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in Alembic Ltd. & Ors. v.
State of Gujarat & Ors. [Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 1426
of 2014, S.Cr.A. Nos. 1543, 1546, 1547 & 3017 of 2014, decided on
11.12.2014].
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed
the petition and has submitted that the petitioners committed repeated
statutory defaults by failing to deposit provident fund contributions within
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

15 MCRC-25023-2023
the time prescribed under the Act of 1952. It has been argued that the

liability of the employer to deposit provident fund contributions is a statutory
obligation and that failure to comply with such obligation constitutes an
offence under the Act. It is further contended that each month's failure to
deposit contributions constitutes a separate offence and therefore the filing of
separate complaints in respect of separate periods cannot be said to be
illegal. The respondents have further submitted that the subsequent deposit of
the amount after initiation of prosecution does not absolve the employer of
criminal liability arising from the statutory default. It is submitted that the
petitioners have not deposited the penalty and the interest as required in the
respective matters. It is further submitted that some of the cases are pending
at the stage of issuance of summons; some are at the stage of framing of
charges; some are at the stage of recording of evidence; and some are at the
final stage of trial. In certain cases, the proceedings have already been
concluded and the Trial Court has convicted the accused persons.
10. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful
perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view
that the controversy involved in the present case essentially relates to the
scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the effect of subsequent payment of
provident fund dues on criminal liability arising under the Employees'
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

16 MCRC-25023-2023
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

12. Before examining the rival submissions advanced by the parties, it
would be appropriate to consider the statutory scheme governing the Act of
1952. The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 is a beneficial social welfare legislation enacted with the object of
providing financial security to employees in the form of provident fund,
pension and insurance benefits. The provisions of the Act cast a statutory
obligation upon employers to deposit contributions towards provident fund
in respect of employees engaged by the establishment.
13. Section 6 of the Act of 1952 mandates that the employer shall
contribute to the provident fund in respect of employees at the rate
prescribed under the scheme and shall also deduct the employees'
contribution from their wages and deposit the same with the provident fund
authorities. The statutory scheme further provides that such contributions
must be deposited within the time prescribed under the relevant scheme,
which ordinarily requires the employer to deposit the contributions within
fifteen days from the close of each month.
14. Section 14 of the Act provides for penalties in cases where the
employer makes default in payment of contributions or fails to comply with
the provisions of the Act or the schemes framed thereunder. Section 14(1-A)
specifically prescribes punishment for failure to pay contributions to the
fund. Section 14A further provides that where an offence under the Act has
been committed by a company, every person who was in charge of and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

17 MCRC-25023-2023
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the

offence was committed shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.
15. In my considered opinion, the scheme of the Act leaves no room for
doubt that the obligation to deposit provident fund contributions is
mandatory in nature and that failure to comply with such obligation attracts
penal consequences. The provisions of the Act are intended to protect the
rights of employees and to ensure that the contributions deducted from the
wages of employees are deposited in the provident fund without delay. Any
failure on the part of the employer to deposit such contributions within the
prescribed period not only violates the statutory mandate but also adversely
affects the financial security of employees.
16. The argument advanced by the petitioners that the subsequent deposit
of the amount should result in quashing of the criminal proceedings cannot
be accepted in light of the settled principles governing prosecution under
welfare legislations. The offence under the Act is complete the moment the
employer fails to deposit the contributions within the time prescribed under
the statute. Subsequent payment of the amount, though relevant for purposes
of mitigation, does not erase the offence which had already been
committed. Upon perusal of the judgments cited by the petitioner, this Court
finds that the aforesaid citations/judgments are not applicable to the facts of
the present case, as the facts of the present case are entirely different from
those in the cases relied upon by the petitioner.
17. In this context, it would be useful to refer to the principles laid down
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

18 MCRC-25023-2023
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp

(1) SCC 335) wherein the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC was elaborately discussed. The Supreme Court held
that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and
only in cases where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the
commission of any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
18. Similarly, in Necharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
(2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the High
Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not
undertake an appreciation of evidence or examine the correctness of
allegations at the stage of quashing. If the allegations in the complaint
disclose the commission of an offence, the criminal proceedings should
ordinarily be allowed to continue.
19. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the complaint filed by the Provident Fund Inspector clearly
discloses the commission of offences under the provisions of the Act of
1952. The allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value,
indicate that the petitioners failed to deposit provident fund contributions
within the time prescribed under the statute. The inquiry conducted by the
authorities also recorded findings regarding the defaults committed by the
establishment.
20. The contention of the petitioners that multiple complaints have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

19 MCRC-25023-2023
filed on the basis of a single inquiry report is also devoid of merit. Under the

statutory scheme governing provident fund contributions, the employer is
required to deposit contributions on a monthly basis. Each month's failure to
deposit the contribution constitutes a distinct default and therefore gives rise
to a separate offence. Consequently, the filing of separate complaints in
respect of separate periods cannot be said to be contrary to law.
21. It must also be observed that the Act of 1952 is a welfare legislation
enacted for the benefit of employees and therefore strict compliance with its
provisions is essential. Any interpretation which enables employers to escape
criminal liability merely by depositing the amount after initiation of
prosecution would defeat the very object of the statute. Such an approach
would encourage employers to withhold employees' contributions and
deposit them only after detection by the authorities.
22. In my considered opinion, the subsequent deposit of provident fund
dues by the petitioners does not extinguish the criminal liability arising from
the statutory default committed by them. The defence raised by the
petitioners regarding financial difficulties or delay in payment by principal
employers are matters which may be examined during the course of trial, but
such considerations cannot be a ground for quashing the prosecution at the
threshold.
23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the
petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings initiated
against them are either frivolous or constitute an abuse of the process of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM

20 MCRC-25023-2023
Court. The allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of

offences under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
24. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
25. The learned trial court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with
law and decide the case on its own merits, as early as possible, without being
influenced by any observations made in this order.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
11:22:11 AM