Allowed

Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2023Cr.M.P./2289/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for alleged non-filing of EPF returns. The court noted the petitioner joined after the alleged delinquency and found that filling 'cognizance' in blank space indicated non-application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire criminal proceedings and order dated 02.07.2014; disposal of pending I.A.; vacation of interim order.

Manoj Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2289 of 2014

¶3

Manoj Kumar

¶4

Ranchi Municipal Corporation …… Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand and Others. …… Opp. Parties

¶6

---------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Mrinal Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate

¶8

07/Dated: 14/09/2023

¶9

Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 02.07.2014 passed in CIII No. 163/2014 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 14 (1A), 14 (1B) of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Sections 14(A), 14A(1) and 14 (AA) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶11

The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the accused failed to submit to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi the consolidated statement of contributions in Form- 12 or abstract in form24 for the month (s) Jan’11 to Nov’ 12 within 25 days of the closed of each said month in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 8 (3) of the

¶12

Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 & Electronic challan return for the period 3/12 to Nov’ 12 and thereby committed the offences punishable under paragraph of the said Scheme read with section 14 (2) and 14(A) and 14(AA) of

¶13

¶14

the said Act. The accused further failed to submit to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi the annual returns in Form-3 & 6 for the year(s) of the period of currency contribution cards for 2010- 11&2011-12 within a month from the date of expiration in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 35, 42 and 43 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and hereby committed the offences punishable under section 14(1) and 14(A) of the said Act and read with paragraph 76(b) of the said scheme. The accused further failed to submit to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi the statutory returns in Form no.9, 2 and monthly returns in Form-5/10 for the month(s) 01/11 to 02/12 within 25 days of the closed of each said month in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph of 36(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and thereby committed the offences punishable under section 14(2) and 14(A) of the said Act read with paragraph 76(b) of the said scheme.

¶15

Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 02.07.2014 the learned court has taken cognizance under sections 14 (1A), 14 (1B) of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Sections 14(A), 14A(1) and 14 (AA) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He submits that the Municipal Corporation is now governed by the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. He submits that the petitioner no.1 was posted as Chief Executive Officer of the said corporation. He submits that the allegation is made that for the period January, 2011 to November, 2012 wherein the petitioner joined the said corporation on 13.12.2013 and the complaint case has been filed on 26.06.2014. He further submits that the said compliance has already been made by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the

¶17

¶18

O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the offence is already made out as the said return was not filed within time and the said return was filed after lodging of the complaint case in that view of the matter no case of interference is made out.

¶19

The Court has gone through the contents of complaint case as well as order taking cognizance and finds that admittedly the allegations are made for non filing of return for the period January, 2011 to November-2012. The documents on record shows that the petitioner no.1 had joined as a Chief Executive Officer of the said corporation on 13.12.2014 wherein the complaint case has been filed on 26.06.2014. Further, in view of deposition of the return by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, it transpires that the employees have been protected as now they are able to receive the amount in question in view of said return and the Employees Provident Fund Organization was only protecting the interest of the employees. The Court further finds that in the order taking cognizance the word ‘cognizance’ has been filled up in blank space which suggests non-application of judicial mind.

¶20

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 02.07.2014 passed in CIII No. 163/2014 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 14 (1A), 14 (1B) of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Sections 14(A), 14A(1) and 14 (AA) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, are quashed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

Satyarthi/

Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Shukdev Kumar Alias Morich Kuli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhinash Prasad Alias Avinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary

Ramesh Chandra And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sushil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramchandra Rungta Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.