Calcutta High Court
Air Transport Corporation And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 22 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)CHN701
JUDGMENT Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.
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 depositedof course, subsequent to 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. and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and 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 Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Samir Kumar Das reported in 2004 (4) CHN 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.
4. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the learned Court by the next date fixed. Copy of the order be also sent to the learned Court for communication and necessary action.