TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 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. - 779 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2010 - SATHASIVAM P., CHAUHAN B. S. DR., JJ. JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam J.- This appeal is directed against the final order dated January 31, 2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C. R. R. No. 2774 of 2005 with C. R. R. No. 2772 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the applications filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the appellants to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm 16 of the respondent for the period from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004. On July 15, 2004 and January 30, 2005, the police submitted two inquiry reports, inter alia, stating the previous conduct of the respondent and also stated that the complaint in issue is civil in nature. On January 31, 2005, after taking into consideration the inquiry reports of the police, the Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, directed issuance of summons against the appellants for an offence under section 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. In response to the summons, the appellants made an application under section 205 of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate and the same was rejected by an order dated July 26, 2005. Subsequently, vide order dated September 12, 2005, the Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the appellants. The appellants filed application being C. R. R. No. 2774 of 2005 before the High Court of Calcutta under section 482 of the Code for quashing of the complaint and prayed for staying of proceedings in the complaint bearing No. C/438 of 2003. The appellants also filed another application under section 482 being C. R. R. No. 2772 of 2005 seeking quashing of the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary. On receipt of the notice, the accused persons abused him in the presence of witnesses and others and also threatened him with dire consequences. He also pointed out that a sum of Rs. 3,050 had been deducted from his salary illegally on account of co-operative loan although, on the previous month, deduction was only to the extent of Rs. 50. With these allegations, he claimed that accused persons have committed offence under sections 467, 468, 403 and 406 read with section 120B, IPC and prayed for issuance of summons. 6. We have adverted to almost all the averments/allegations made by the respondent herein in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 5 who are the appellants before us. From this, we are able to understand that the respondent has grievance against the management in respect of his non-promotion at the relevant time, moving to the High Court of Calcutta, obtaining certain orders, filing of contempt petition, etc. It is also alleged that the appellants have deducted income-tax to the extent of Rs. 1,640 per month from his monthly salary as income-tax but according to the respondent, he was not liable to pay income-tax. 7. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prescribed time, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. (3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by such authority such statement in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed." 11. Section 206 mandates persons deducting tax to furnish prescribed returns. "206. (1) The prescribed person in the case of every office of Government, the principal officer in the case of every company, the prescribed person in the case of every local authority or other public body or association, every private employer and every other person responsible for deducting tax before the 1st day of April, 2005, under the foregoing provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay tax to the credit of the Central Government in certain cases or pay the tax collected at source under section 276BB shall be punishable with imprisonment. 15. In the case on hand, it is the categorical stand of the appellants-management that the amount of tax that has been deducted from the respondent's salary as TDS under the head "Salaries" in terms of section 192 is uniformly done in respect of each and every employee of the company. It is also asserted that the amount of tax so deducted, deposited to the credit of the employees including the respondent in terms of section 199. They also produced a copy of Form 16 being the certificate under section 203 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the tax deducted at source from the income chargeable under the head "Salaries" in respect of the respondent relating to the period from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004. 16. In the light of the factual scenario, let us see the initial direction of the Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, to the IO concerned, the report of the police officer as well as ultimate order dated January 31, 2005 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing summons upon the appellants/accused persons for offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith acknowledgment due on November 17, 2003, admittedly, no such proof had been placed before the court. In fact, the appellants stoutly denied the receipt of such a notice. 18. In spite of all the details and materials since the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons, the appellants approached the High Court under section 482 of the Code for quashing the same. The High Court, by the impugned order, without adverting to any of the abovementioned relevant materials passed a cryptic order in one line "I am not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol". No doubt, after dismissing the petition issued certain directions for protection relating to personal appearance of the appellants before the magistrate. 19. This court, in a series of decisions, has emphasized the inherent power of the High Court to pass appropriate orders to prevent the abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice. Though, the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution when adequate materials are available which clearly show that the proceeding is either of civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused. No doubt, at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegation made therein. 22. In Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi [1979] 4 SCC 396, when the financier seized the truck in question due to default in payment of instalment, the buyer of the vehicle launched criminal prosecution, this court held it as an abuse of process of the court since the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and quashed the entire proceedings. * See page 741 of [1976] 3 SCC 736. 23. mIn G. Sagar Suri v. State of U. P. [2000] 2 SCC 636 (SC)*, this court has held : "8. Jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.' 14. 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. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250, CrPC, more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant." 26. In the light of the abovementioned well established principles, we are of the view 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 under section 482 when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
