Rahul Borah v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 24-01-2024

¶1Heard Mr. V. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rahul Borah. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents No. 1 and 3, Mr. A. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. H. Begum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶2The petitioner, Manager of Hunwal Tea Estate, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) seeking quashing of the FIR of Mariani Police Station Case No. 85/2023 under Sections 120(B)/406/409/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).

¶3The FIR unfolds that the employers of Hunwal Tea Estate, under ATEPFO Code -(S-132) willfully did not deposit the Provident Fund Contribution deducted from the wages of the workers of the Tea Estate. The employers being responsible for collection of the Provident Fund from the employees have to remit the same as per law laid down in Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund Scheme, but the employers failed to deposit the collected Provident Fund Page No.# 3/3 Contribution from the employees although the same had been deducted from their wages.

¶4I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.

¶5It is submitted by learned counsel for both the sides that the matter has been settled amicably. The Provident Fund amount deducted from the employees have already been deposited. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the FIR is quashed and set aside. As the dispute is amicably settled and as the dispute relates to monetary transaction, this appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

¶6The possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Further proceeding would indeed be an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶7Considering all aspects, and in view of my foregoing discussions and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides, the FIR being of Mariani Police Station Case No. 85/2023 under Sections 120(B)/406/409/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.

In the above terms, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010264362023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCrl.Pet./1242/2023o RAHULoBORAHo MANAGERoOFoHUNWALoTEAoESTATE,o MCLEODoRUSSELoINDIAoLIMITED,o AGEDoABOUTo52oYEARS,o S/OoLATEoHEMANTAoNARAYANoBORAH,o R/OoHUNWALoTEAoESTATE,oMCLEODoRUSSELoINDIAoLTD.o P.O.oMARIANIo P.S.oMARIANIo DIST.oJORHAT,oASSAMo PIN-785634 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoPP,oASSAM 2:DHARITRIoBASISTHA oS/OoMANASHoKUMARoSHARMAo ASSISTANToP.F.oCOMMISSIONER oJORHAToZONE oJORHAT oP.O.oJORHAT oASSAMo PIN-785001 3:THEoOFFICERoIN-CHARGE oMARIANIoPOLICEoSTATION o DIST.oJORHAT oASSAMo PIN-785634 Page No.# 2/3 4:ADITYA KHAIYTAN MANAGING DIRECTOR MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED FOUR MANGOE LANE KOLKATA PIN-700001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND