Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writs in the nature of prohibition, restraining the II Metropolitan Magistrate / respondent no.2, to proceed in criminal complaint in C.C.Nos.745, 746, 748, 9723 & 9725 of 2005 as against the petitioner or its partners. 2. M/s.Jayapradha Theatre is a partnership firm, which has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writs of prohibition, restraining the II Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed with the complaint filed by the Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Employees State Insurance Corporation. 3. The case of the petitioner is, that originally the firm was run under the name and style of Midland Theatre, the management of which was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1986. (There is no provision for purchase of management). The petitioner could acquire the assets of the firm by purchase. The Application was, thereafter, made for allotment of number code under ESI Act. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that even before the number code could be assigned to the petitioner, the first respondent launched criminal prosecution in C.C.No.11798 of 1988 dated 11.08.1980 for the period October 1987 to March 1988 and October 1988 to September 1989. The complaint ended in acquittal, for the reason that the code number was not yet assigned. 5. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of Ministry of Labour, by submitting representation. The petitioner submits that it is not covered under ESI Act. 6. The case of the petitioner is that without allotting the code number, respondents proceeded to determine the damages under Section 85-B of the ESI Act, before even decision of the criminal proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that contribution has also been assessed against the petitioner without notice. 7. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of assessment of contribution by filing W.P.No.13835 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed, as the petitioner had challenged only the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to appear before ESI Corporation, where he is said to have appeared and challenged its jurisdiction, to claim contribution or damages. 8. The case of the petitioner is that, the recovery order has been passed without notice to the petitioner, though proceedings have already been challenged by the petitioner in the ESI Court where interim stay was granted by the ESI Court. 9. 8. The case of the petitioner is that, the recovery order has been passed without notice to the petitioner, though proceedings have already been challenged by the petitioner in the ESI Court where interim stay was granted by the ESI Court. 9. Thereafter, more orders have been passed for recovery for the subsequent period, against which, interim orders were granted by this Court. 10. The respondent filed criminal complaints, referred to above in the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate for violation of provisions of ESI Act, including for non filing of the returns. 11. The case of the petitioner is that allegations in the complaint are false, as it has already been brought to the notice that stay stands granted. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is unable to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the complaint so far. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that II Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, as the petitioner is not covered under ESI Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that without obtaining sanction of prosecution, the complaint before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, is not competent, specially when ESI proceedings are pending in the ESI Court. 13. On consideration, I find that the writ petitions are totally misconceived. The learned Magistrate Court has not taken cognizance of the offences so far, therefore in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot prohibit the Court from performing its functions. It will be for the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate or appropriate forum, if so advised, in case cognizance of the offences is taken. The mere pendency of civil proceedings cannot be a bar to continue with the criminal proceedings, if any illegality is committed, in any case, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot issue writ in the nature of prohibition against the Court of competent jurisdiction to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. 14. In any case, at this stage, it is premature to form an opinion, as admittedly no cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, of the complaint filed by the ESI Corporation. 15. 14. In any case, at this stage, it is premature to form an opinion, as admittedly no cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, of the complaint filed by the ESI Corporation. 15. As already observed, the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to prohibit a judicial Court from performing its functions. 16. Consequently, the writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.