JUDGMENT : 1. This is a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of Cri. Complaint No. 14/2007 pending before learned J.M.F.C. (Railway Magistrate), Indore, whereby petitioners have been prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 25(1) and 22 of Maternity Benefit Act and rules made thereunder. 2. Short facts of the case are that the complaint has been filed against the petitioners alleging that petitioners are Directors of M/s Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at "Knowledge House", Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari-Vikroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 company is engaged in business of providing of Home Solutions i.e. Furnitures and Fixtures, home improvement and other consumer durables, through its retail stores across the country. It was alleged that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the Directors of petitioner No. 1 company. It was alleged that one of the retail outlet of the petitioner No. 1 company is situated at 3rd Floor of Treasure Island, M. G. Road, Indore and is doing business in the name and style of M/s "Collection-I". It was alleged that the Inspector of the respondent inspected the premises of petitioner No. 1 company on 21-3-2007 and found that the petitioner No. 1 company is not maintaining the attendance register in Form-A of the women employees employed in the establishment thereby committed an offence punishable under section 20 of the Act and Rule 3(1) of the Rules framed under the Act. The another allegation against the petitioner No. 1 company is that the establishment did not display the abstract of the Act and Rules in conspicuous part of the premises thereby committed violation of Rule 16 of M. P. Maternity Benefit Rules, 1965. Upon the complaint filed by the respondent after taking cognizance notices were issued to the petitioners against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior Advocate for the petitioners, argued at length and submits that the learned Court below committed error in taking cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1965 are not applicable to the establishment, which are covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. 3. Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned senior Advocate for the petitioners, argued at length and submits that the learned Court below committed error in taking cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1965 are not applicable to the establishment, which are covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Learned counsel submits that the whole idea behind the Act is to protect the interest of working women, when they are in the family way. It is submitted that section 50 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 lays down the qualification of an insured woman to claim maternity benefits. It is submitted that as per sub-section (2) of section of 2 of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, provisions of this Act are not applicable to a factory or other establishment to which the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, are applicable. It is submitted that since the establishment of the petitioner is registered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, therefore, the petitioners are not required to fulfil the requirement of the Maternity Benefit Act. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the complaint filed against the petitioners be quashed. 4. Shri L. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that since at the time of inspection it was found that petitioners have not completed the formalities, which were required under the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, therefore, petitioners have rightly been prosecuted. It is submitted that at this stage documents filed by the petitioners cannot be looked into. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 5. From perusal of sub-section (2) of section 2 of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, it is evident that the Act is not applicable to the establishment to which the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, are applicable. Employees State Insurance Act provides the maternity benefits to its employees. The documents placed on record by the petitioners prima facie shows that the establishment of the petitioner No. 1 company is duly registered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act. The document which have been submitted by the petitioners are authenticated documents, which can be looked into by this Court at this stage. The documents placed on record by the petitioners prima facie shows that the establishment of the petitioner No. 1 company is duly registered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act. The document which have been submitted by the petitioners are authenticated documents, which can be looked into by this Court at this stage. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prosecution of the petitioners on account violation of provisions of Maternity Benefit Act is a abuse of the process as petitioners are already registered under the Employees State Insurance Act. In view of this petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the prosecution of the Cri. Case No. 14/2007 pending before the J.M.F.C. (Railway Magistrate), Indore, stands quashed. 6. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of.