ORDER 1. The Hooghly Docking and Engineering Co. Ltd. the petitioner No. 1 herein is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1956. It has its registered office at No. 12. Mission Raw. Calcutta and its factory is situated at No.6. Howrah Road, Salkia, West Bengal, The petitioner No. 1 carries on business in ship building and ship repairing. Birendra Nath Mukherjee, the petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 and lie the material time had been a director and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners Nos. 3 to 6 were at the material time also the directors of the petitioner No 1. 2. The petitioner. No. 1 had been sustaining losses in its business since 1963, and its position became ever more acute since 1966 on account of general economic recession in India. As a result the available working fund of the petitioner No. 1 was completely depleted and all its reserves were completely wiped cut. Funds were not available for payment of both the net wages of the employees as also the other liabilities including statutory liabilities and after payment of the net wages the petitioner No.1 had to defer payment of its other liabilities till its financial position improved. The contributions of the petitioner No.1 to the provident fund of its employees therefore remained unpaid from July 1970, in spite of exercise of all possible diligence and bona fide attempts on its part. 3. The petitioner No.1 by its letter dated the 21st March, 1973 informed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that it was unable to pay its contributions to the provident fund of its employees by reason of the aforesaid facts. The Commissioner was further informed that the petitioner No. 1 was about to secure two large orders which could keep it going for some more time and that the Industries Re-construction Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) a subsidiary of the reserve Bank of India, bad assured the petitioner No. 1 that assistance would be given to it to enable it to tide over its temporary financial difficulty and had agreed to advance funds to the petitioner No.1 sufficient to mod its liabilities. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was assured that as soon as such fund would be received from the Corporation a scheme for refund of all arrears of contribution. to the provident fund would be submitted. 4. By a subsequent letter dated the 24th May. 1973 the petitioner No. 1 further informed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the Corporation had sanctioned grant for assisting the petitioner No. 1 on condition that the management and control of the -petitioner No. 1 would be made over to the Corporation during the period such assistance would continue. 5. By the said letter petitioner No.1 also submitted a scheme for repayment of al1 arrears of provident fund contributions and requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to drop all criminal prosecution instituted in the meantime for non-payment of the said provident fund contribution. 6. The Corporation assumed management and control of the petitioner No.1 in April, 1973 and the Board of Directors of the petitioner No.1 was reconstituted. Since the 27th February 1973 petitioner No. 2 ceased to be the Chairman of the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner Nos. 3,4.5 and 6 also ceased to be the director and had nothing further to do with the control or management of the affairs of the petitioner No. 1. 7. Between the 9th January, 1973 and the 12th February, 1974 the Inspector, Employees Provident Fund, West Bengal had instituted several proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and altogether 17 petitions of complaints had been lodged 8. By his letter dated the 30th November. 1973, the Regional Provident fund Commissioner, west Bengal, informed the petitioner No. 1 that the Government of India in its Ministry of labour had agreed to accept its proposal for clearance of its arrears of provident fund contributions on the following terms and conditions; (a) the amount of installments would be paid regularly along with current dues. (b) The eatire amount of any individual claim of a member or his nominee or heir in respect of his provident fund would be paid in full. (c) In the event of any breach of the present terms and conditions it would be open to the Provident Fund Authorities to take legal action. (d) the petitioner No.1 should agree to pay damages and other incidental charge as may be determined by the appropriate Government. 9. (c) In the event of any breach of the present terms and conditions it would be open to the Provident Fund Authorities to take legal action. (d) the petitioner No.1 should agree to pay damages and other incidental charge as may be determined by the appropriate Government. 9. The petitioner No. 1 accepted all the aforesaid conditions and started making payment of the instalments immediately thereafter and the said instalments were paid regularly. The petitioner alleged that in spite of the aforesaid the Provident Fund Authorities are continuing the proceedings instituted against them, the petitioner, in the Court of the 10th Presidency Magistrate. The petitioner contend that it is the standing practice that if a defaulting employer pay all arrears of its provident funds contributions or a scheme of payment of such arrears is approved by the Provident Fund Commissioner no prosecution is instituted against such an employer and it is also the practice that whenever an employer pays up his provident fund dues or a scheme for payment of arrears of his contribution to the provident fund is approved and accepted by the authorities complaints if already lodged are withdrawn. 10. The petitioners contained further that they have made all possible attempts to pay off the provident fund dues and there was no wilful default on their part in not paying such dues earlier and the continuation of the aforesaid criminal proceedings amount to a discrimination against them and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended further that as the arrears of the provident fund contribution are being paid in installments under an approved and accepted scheme which has been acted upon by the parties the petitioner cannot be subjected to payment under such scheme and at the same time criminally prosecuted. 11. The present Rule was issued on the 8th April 1974 calling upon the respondents. viz. the Inspector, Employees Provident Fund, West Bengal the 10th Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta; the State of West Bengal; the Central Provident Fund Commissioner New Delhi, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal to show cause why appropriate writs should not be issued commanding them to refrain from proceeding with the said criminal cases in the Court of the 10th Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and for setting inside or quashing the orders passed in the said cases. An interim order was passed restraining the respondents not to proceed with the said cases or to exercise jurisdiction in respect thereof till the disposal of the Rule. By an order passed on the 31st March, 1976 the Said interim order was varied and it was directed that if the petitioners fail to make payment of any instalment thereunder within the time specified the interim order would stand vacated. 12. This application is opposed on behalf of the Inspector, Employees Provident Fund the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. West Bengal as also the State of West Bengal. An affidavit of one Ramanlal Mohanlal Gandhi affirmed on the 12th March. 1976 has been filed in Opposition to the petition. It is inter alia, stated in this affidavit that there is no provision in the Employees Provident Fund and Family, Pension Act, 1952 and the scheme framed there under to grant any relaxation for payment of contributions to the provident fund and it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the arrears of such Contribution. It is stated further that because of the defaults in making payment toward the contribution and also defaults in payment of the installments under the said proposal of the Government of India, the criminal proceedings are being-continued. It is alleged that the petitioner started payment of the instalments at the rate of Rs, 20,000/- per month only from December 1973 in violation of the agreement. They failed to pay the arrears of instalment from April, 1973 to November, 1973 and the monthly instalments thereafter regularly. It is alleged that the petitioner have committed offence punishable under S. 14(2A) of the said Act. as also under Ss. 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Pursuant to directions given in these proceedings the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit of one jitendra Nath Nandy, the accountant of the petitioner No. 1 affirmed on the 13th July. 1979. It is stated in this affidavit that the entire arrears of the provident fund contributions of the petitioner No. 1 have been paid up by the 23rd March. 1979 and that nothing remain due and payable by the petitioner No.1 to the said provident fund. 1979. It is stated in this affidavit that the entire arrears of the provident fund contributions of the petitioner No. 1 have been paid up by the 23rd March. 1979 and that nothing remain due and payable by the petitioner No.1 to the said provident fund. A statement showing the particulars of all payments made by the petitioner No. 1 towards the arrears of its provident fund contributions under tile said scheme from the 10th August, 1973 when a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid till the 23rd March 1979 when the final payment of Rs. 30,000/- was made bas been annexed to this affidavit. 14. the correctness of the statement has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. 15. In the facts and circumstances the only point fur consideration is whether in view of the payment of the entire provident fund dues the petitioners should suffer the said criminal proceeding.. 16 the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended at the hearing that by reason of the aforesaid payments the entire basis of the criminal proceeding have come to an and there is no reason why the respondent should be permitted to case and the same against the petitioners. It is contended on the other hand by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that though the arrears of provident fund contributions have been paid since the issue of this Rule the fact remains that the Petitioners had committed default and they are liable to be penalized for the same. 17. It is not in dispute that in November, 1973. there was an agreement and/or accepted arrangement between the Provident Fund Authorities and the petitioner No. 1 that the arrears of provident fund dues would be cleared of certain terms and that the petitioner No. 1 agreed to make payment in terms thereof. It is also not in dispute that the said agreement and/or arrangement had not been terminated by the Provident Fund Authorities or put an end to by the parties thereto. In spite of the delays in the payment of instalments made pursuant thereto the Provident Fund Authorities have accepted the same to satisfaction of their claims. It is also not in dispute that the said agreement and/or arrangement had not been terminated by the Provident Fund Authorities or put an end to by the parties thereto. In spite of the delays in the payment of instalments made pursuant thereto the Provident Fund Authorities have accepted the same to satisfaction of their claims. In the circumstances, it will not be Consonant to justice to permit the respondent to constitute the sad criminal proceeding against the petitioner particularly as the entire amount of arrears had been paid up and had been accepted by the respondent. The petitioners are admittedly no longer in control of the company. It was open to the Provident Fond Authorities to put an end to the arrangement and/or agreement when the petitioner No. 1 failed to pay to stipulated instalments in time. This was not done. Having accepted the instalments. offered after the stipulated period the Provident Fund Authorities must be held to have extended the time for payment of such instalments by implication and by their conduct. If any event the petitioners have acted on the basis that the time for payment of instalment under the said scheme had been extended and by paying the said instalments they have altered their position. It is not open to the Provident Fund Authorities Now to fall back upon the past defaults and continue the Criminal prosecution. 18. the learned Advocate for the respondents also submitted that the petitioners have adequate alternative remedies and they could rely on the factum of payment of the entire arrears of provident fund contribution as their defence in the proceeding, before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Advocate submitted further that normally the Court exercising its constitutional jurisdiction should not interfere in pending criminal Proceedings. 19 Such contentions are not entinely without substance but circumstance may arise when a civil Court and/or a Court sitting in the Constitutional writ jurisdiction may be required to interfere even in case Where there may be ancillary civil and criminal proceedings pending. In Karam Chand Ganga Prosad v. The Union of India reported in AIR 1971 SC 1244 it was laid down by the Supreme Cou8rt that merely because consequential proceedings were pending in a criminal court the same could not bar the civil court adjudicating upon matters in dispute. In Karam Chand Ganga Prosad v. The Union of India reported in AIR 1971 SC 1244 it was laid down by the Supreme Cou8rt that merely because consequential proceedings were pending in a criminal court the same could not bar the civil court adjudicating upon matters in dispute. The Supreme Court observed further that the decisions of a Civil Court was always binding on the Criminal Courts and not vice versa. 20. For the reasons aforesaid the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the application. A Writ in the nature of Prohibition will issue commanding the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to refrain from proceedings further with the said criminal cases pending before the 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus will also issue directing the respondents to take steps for withdrawing the said criminal cases against the petitioners in accordance with law and if necessary, to take steps to compound the same. The Rule is made absolute to the extent as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.