Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 513 (PAT)

Vinod Kumar Dudani v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-13

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Complaint Case No. 1863 of 2005 as well as the entire proceeding of the complaint case. Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order has taken cognizance and issued summon against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears from the record that the complaint-opposite party no. 2 and his two brothers have several business in Chapra town. This complainant-opposite party no. 2 is running M/s Byahut Tea Company whereas his brother Bijay Kumar is running M/s. Shankar Tea Store. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Saran Circle in the year 2005. On the order of Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna two teams of Commercial Taxes Officers were formed in Chapra for identifying dealers liable for registration under the Bihar VAT Act, 2005. One of the teams on 14.6.2005 surveyed the shop of M/s Shankar Tea Store, Mauna Chowk, upon which the dealer promised to apply for registration under the VAT Act within three days. The firm for the same also handed over to the owner which was received by the complainant-Opposite party no. 2. However, the dealer of M/s Shankar Store did not apply for registration till 14.7.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner directed four Commercial Taxes Officers for inspection of the shop. On 14.7.2005 the team went to the shop for inspection but were prevented by the brother of the complainant, Bijay Kumar Byahut. The matter was reported to the police and on assurance of the Superintendent of Police with regard to police help this petitioner along with the team again went for inspection of the shop but again they were prevented by the brother of the complainant. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged against the brother of the complainat before Town police which was registered as case no. 152/05. 3. It further appears that thereafter Bijay Kumar Byahut and Opposite Party no. 2 within a period of eight days lodged three complaint cases against the petitioner including the present one which is in question. 4. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged against the brother of the complainat before Town police which was registered as case no. 152/05. 3. It further appears that thereafter Bijay Kumar Byahut and Opposite Party no. 2 within a period of eight days lodged three complaint cases against the petitioner including the present one which is in question. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but vexatious and malicious and has been filed with ulterior and oblique motive in order to wreck vengeance and demorlise the officers of commercial taxes and also to prevent them from taking any action against the complainant and his brother. The real fact is that the complainant and.his brother have liability to pay taxes and penalty amounting to Rs. 34.01 lacs to the Government. Assessment has also been done by the petitioner against which one of the brothers has moved before this Hon ble Court through C.W.J.C. No. 3386/04. In support of the above contention several documents with regard to inspection, assessment etc. have been filed. 5. From the facts stated above as well as the documents it would be quite clear that the motive for filing of series of complaint cases against the petitioner is only to terrorise and demoralise the officers of Commercial Taxes Department and deter them from implementing the scheme of VAT and to recover the tax which is due against them. The police after investigation has also submitted charge-sheet against the brother of the complainant through annexure-24. Thereafter, again another complaint case has been filed against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant and his brother being Complaint Case No. 232/06. 6. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecution of the petitioner is vexatious, malacious and has been launched with ulterior and oblique motive. If such prosecution is allowed to continue it would demorlise the government officials create heriderance in discharge of discharge of and official duty fearlessly. The complainant shall not be allowed to misuse the process of the court for his unlawful benefit or to wreck vengeance against Government officials. 7. Once more this Court would like to remind the lower court that summoning of Government servant in a mechanical manner is serious matter. Before setting the criminal law in motion the court must examine probability and improbability of the allegations as well as motive. 7. Once more this Court would like to remind the lower court that summoning of Government servant in a mechanical manner is serious matter. Before setting the criminal law in motion the court must examine probability and improbability of the allegations as well as motive. In this very se the allegations mentioned in the complaint petition are apparently improbable and absurd. The motive for prosecution is also very aparent on the fact of the record. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order along with entire criminal proceeding initiated against this petitioner is quashed.