AMIT VASHISTHA versus SURESH AND ANOTHER

AMIT VASHISTHA versus SURESH AND ANOTHER

Proceedings under Section 7A Employees Provident Funds Act are judicial proceedings; a complaint under Section 228 IPC arising from such proceedings is maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, regardless of whether the authority is a court.

Parties
Appellant: Amit Vashistha; Respondent: Suresh; Respondent: Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Section 228 Ipc—insulting or Interrupting Public Servant, Judicial Proceeding Under Section 7 a Employees Provident Funds Act, Maintainability of Complaint Under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amit Vashistha

Appellant

Suresh

Respondent

Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Revision

  1. 1 Whether proceedings under Section 7A Employees Provident Funds Act are judicial proceedings for purposes of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC
  2. 2 Maintainability of complaint under Section 228 IPC arising from such proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Proceedings under Section 7A Employees Provident Funds Act are judicial proceedings; a complaint under Section 228 IPC arising from such proceedings is maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, regardless of whether the authority is a court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • The unsustainable order of the High Court is set aside.
  • Appeal allowed.