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.
Parties
Amit Vashistha
Appellant
Suresh
Respondent
Another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proceedings under Section 7A Employees Provident Funds Act are judicial proceedings for purposes of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment