Rajnish Bhatnagar JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:
"A. Call for the judicial record in digital form of complaint case no. 11359/18 titled as Regional Provident Commissioner Vs. Absolute Security & Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. U/s. 14 & 14(a) read with para 76(d) of EPF Scheme from Hon'ble Court of Sh. Rajesh Malik, CMM, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi;
B. Quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 passed by Sh. Rajesh Malik, CMM, North West District, Rohini Court in complaint case No. 11359/18 titled as Regional Provident Commissioner Vs. Absolute Security & Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. & order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Court of Sh. Pankaj Gupta, ASJ, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 38 of 2019 and accept the petition."
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint U/s. 14 and 14(a) read with Para 76(D) and Para 78(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (EPF scheme) on the facts that the complainant had introduced Universal Account Number Service for contributing members to facilitate probability of PF accounts w.e.f. 22.07.2014; that vide Government of India Notification dated 10.02.2016, the complainant had also introduced Incentive Refund Scheme for employees who provided Universal Account Number with 100% or 60% seeded KYC to all its employee in the EPF Scheme 1952; that the complainant introduced Umag-App to facilitate its PF subscribers for online settlement of claims, uploading of the Pass book, Online Transfer of PF accounts, alerts message and other service. The above services were only available to the PF subscribers who had completed their KYC and had their AADHAR, Bank and Pan linked with UAN; that the accused, an establishment within the meaning of the EPF & MP Act-1952 and scheme framed there under, had been allotted Code no. D/39080 and thus was required to comply with all the provisions of the said act and the scheme framed there under in respect of the said establishment; that the complainant office via E-mail dated 27.08.2018 issued a Show Cause Notice to the accused regarding compliance, but the accused failed to comply with the requirements prescribed in Para 36 and 37 of the EPF Scheme, 1952. The bank account number, Aadhar number and PAN card number of the every member of the Establishment were not updated; that the accused failed in seeding of KYC with Universal Account Number with regards to all the members of the said Establishment and thus committed offence under Section 14 and 14(a) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 read with Para 76(D) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 and para 78(3) of the EPF Scheme.
3. Thereafter the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance on 24.09.2018 and since the complaint U/s. 200 Cr.P.C., was filed in the capacity of public servant, therefore, pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with and the Trial Court took cognizance for offence U/s. 14 & 14(a) R/w. 76(D) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and summoned the petitioner.
4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and questioned the correctness, legality and proprietary ........