2010 (8) TMI 664 - SC - Indian Laws

Criminal proceedings - Claim for promotion to the post of senior mechanic alleging that assessee was superseded by his juniors - While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law should himself be made accountable at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings in accordance with law - In the light of the well established principles held that the High Court has committed an error firstly in not assigning any reason and passing a cryptic order and secondly failed to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 when the complaint does not disclose any offence of criminal nature - For the sake of repetition reiterate though the respondent had some grievance about his non-promotion certain orders passed by the High Court including filing of contempt etc - In view of the statutory provisions of the Income-tax Act the assertion of the appellants that deductions were being made for all the persons who are liable to pay tax in terms of the Income-tax Act the proper remedy for the respondent is to approach the authority/officer concerned and not by filing complaint - Considering all these materials and in the light of the various principles enunciated held that the High Court committed an error in not exercising its jurisdiction and dismissing the petition filed under section 482 - Consequently the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court against the appellants - The criminal appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-promotion and related grievances.
2. Alleged wrongful deduction of income tax from salary.
3. Alleged wrongful deduction of cooperative loan amount.
4. Jurisdiction of the criminal court in a civil matter.
5. Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-promotion and related grievances:
The respondent joined the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. in 1973 and was appointed as an assistant foreman in 1989. He filed a writ petition in 1991 alleging that he was superseded by his juniors and sought promotion to the post of senior mechanic. The High Court directed maintaining the status quo. The respondent later filed a contempt petition alleging violation of this order, which was dismissed after hearing the concerned officers. The respondent claimed that the appellants conspired against him due to the High Court's direction, leading to threats and illegal deductions from his salary.

2. Alleged wrongful deduction of income tax from salary:
The respondent filed a complaint on December 6, 2003, alleging that Rs. 1,640 per month was wrongfully deducted from his salary as income tax and not deposited with the income-tax authority. He claimed he did not fall within the taxable income category. The appellants contended that the deductions were made in compliance with Section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the amount was deposited as required. They produced Form 16 for the relevant period to support their claim.

3. Alleged wrongful deduction of cooperative loan amount:
The respondent also alleged that Rs. 3,050 was deducted from his salary for a cooperative loan, while the previous month's deduction was only Rs. 50. He claimed that these deductions were part of the appellants' conspiracy to pressurize him.

4. Jurisdiction of the criminal court in a civil matter:
The police inquiry report stated that the matter was civil in nature. The Judicial Magistrate, however, issued summons for an offense under Section 406/120B of the IPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offense and that the respondent's grievances were essentially civil. The Court noted that the statutory provisions of the Income-tax Act mandated the employer to deduct and deposit tax, and failure to do so would result in penalties and prosecution under Sections 271C, 276B, and 276BB.

5. Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing criminal proceedings:
The appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition without providing reasons. The Supreme Court highlighted the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the court process and secure justice. The Court referenced several precedents, including Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., which outline the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in not exercising its jurisdiction and quashing the proceedings, given that the complaint was civil in nature and did not disclose any criminal offense.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court, emphasizing that the respondent's grievances were civil and should have been addressed through appropriate civil remedies rather than criminal prosecution. The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were dismissed.