JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2. The petitioner no.1 is a practicing Chartered Accountant. The petitioner no. 2, is the son of petitioner no. 1 and is studying for acquisition of qualification of Chartered Accountant. 3. Petitioners are claiming that Crime No.263 of 2011 registered under Section 16(8), 74(1)(a)(c) (e),Section 74(2),section 74(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 along with section 109, 110, 111, 120, 420,463,464,465,468,471,474,34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside. 4. The petitioners claim that :- (a) They are innocent and totally uninvolved in act of crime complained; (b) Their participation as authorized signatory and their filing/signing the return for assessee and the claim for refund by the assessee does not constitute the commission of offence by them; (c) The authorities admit that any false information was not supplied by them and on behalf of assessee at the time of getting the assessee firm registered under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act,2002, as can be seen from page 76 of the paper book, through which the information was supplied to the applicants under Right to Information Act. (d) Applicants have no stake or involvement in any of the business affairs of the assessee and they cannot be prosecuted for the offence whatsoever; (e) It being a case of offence under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002, the registration of the offence under the Indian Penal Code is not permissible. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners had taken the Court to the text of the First Information Report, original Marathi as well as translation. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments : [1] 1993 CRI. L.J. 232, Syed Kaleem V. M/s Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works and another. Proposition: Registration of an offence punishable under Section 78 & 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, instead thereof under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is wholly improper in the background that the element of cheating as contemplated by Section 420 of the I.P.C. is totally different from the element of like intention or acts found incorporated in Section 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. [2] (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 526, Jeewan Kumar Raut and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Proposition: Provisions of Special Law will override the general law. [2] (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 526, Jeewan Kumar Raut and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Proposition: Provisions of Special Law will override the general law. Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has no application when the offence was registered under Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and special procedure was prescribed therein. [3] AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 2796, Ashok Chaturvedi and others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and another. Proposition: When the statements of the complainant and the witnesses do not reveal the story of commission of offence, the registration of offence should not have been done. [4] 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 332 (S.C.) Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Proposition: When on record the forgery was not aptly made out, the registration of offence was not proper and, therefore, when commission of offence is not demonstrated, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned APP has opposed the application and has urged that: (a) For supporting the prayer for quashing the F.I.R., it is to be shown that no offence whatsoever is described against the accused in the FIR and such is not the case in present matter. (b) The involvement of the petitioners is documented and is duly described. (c) The accused cannot claim the declaration to be innocent, without a trial. 8. The learned APP has placed reliance on the following judgment: [1] Sales Tax Cases Vol. 120, State of West Bengal Vs. Narayan K. Patodia. Proposition: Though the offence was committed under the Sales Tax Act when ingredients of other offence under Indian Penal Code were attracted, the registration of offence under both the Acts i.e. Indian Penal Code and Sales Tax Act is permissible. These enactments are not mutually exclusive. If the offences are committed under the Sales Tax Act, as well under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, First Information Report under both the Acts can be legally registered. 9. This Court has perused the record annexed to the application, and has read Marathi as well as English version of the First Information Report. Though English translation is not faithful to the content and meaning of vernacular, it may be convenient to refer to the contents of F.I.R. which is in Marathi. 10. 9. This Court has perused the record annexed to the application, and has read Marathi as well as English version of the First Information Report. Though English translation is not faithful to the content and meaning of vernacular, it may be convenient to refer to the contents of F.I.R. which is in Marathi. 10. The version appearing against the present petitioners in FIR reads as follows: "While inspecting this application Shri Ahirkar, Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner (Investigation) has prepared the memorandum of investigation to receive the information whether the dealer M/s S N Coal businessman has shown his tax liability or not, it is found that M/s Permanent Fincon Pvt. Ltd has also taken incorrect set off. The format 704 audit report of all these businessman (traders?) has been prepared by one Shri D.P. Sarda and Shri D.P. Sarda has also put his signatures as a witness while opening the bank account bearing No.0025338719-050 in the name of M/s S N Coals and Coke with the Indusind Bank Ltd., Shri Swami Plaza, 97, East High Court Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Similarly, while observing the bank statement bearing No. 1110 of M/s S N Coal and Coke with Federal Bank Ltd, Pushpakunj Complex, 20 Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur it is found that the withdrawal has been made in the name of Shri D P Sarda. The dealer M/s Permanent Fincon Pvt. Ltd. has claimed set off of Rs 43,77,015/- for the year 2008-2009 in the same way. Copies of some bills given by M/s S N Coals and Coke and the memorandum of investigation sent by the concerned officer are attached hereto. After perusing, the statement of bank Account and the application given for opening the bank account by both businessmen (traders?), M/s S N Coal and Coke and M/s Ajay Trade Links, with the Indusind Bank Ltd and its authorized persons Shri Mukund D Sarda. son of Shri D P Sarda. In the aforestated manner Shri Aiay Ramnaresh Yadav, Shri Ravi RamsherYadav, Shri Durga Prasad Sarda, Shri Mukund Sarda, Shri Nitin P Wankhede (Authorised Signatory M/s Permanent Fincon Pvt. Ltd, R/o Plot No. 10. Old Mankapur, Near MSEB Railway Station, Nagpur) have jointly and in collusion with each other with the common intention and with the help and assistance of each other deliberately have cheated Maharashtra State Tax Department. Old Mankapur, Near MSEB Railway Station, Nagpur) have jointly and in collusion with each other with the common intention and with the help and assistance of each other deliberately have cheated Maharashtra State Tax Department. Maharashtra Government and the people of the State by preparing the false documents and false bills, and having a system by which dishonest sale purchase transaction are shown in such a way that tax liability to them is less. thereby filing such tax returns, and on that basis in future if assessment is done then it is arranged to have the assessment order of less amount as mentioned herein above and thereby having a demand notice issued for less amount, also compelled to do this and therefore, they all have committed the offence punishable under section 420, read with Section 34, 109,110,111 and 120 of IPC. In this way both the dealers have made big sale of coal on the basis of false registration certificate and taken false tax recovery and false tax set off and thereby caused loss to the Government. In this way both the aforesaid dealers has made the big sale of coal on the basis of false registration certificate and made false tax recovery and taken false tax set off and thereby caused loss to the government." [Quoted from page 23-24 & 25-26 of Criminal Application paper book] Translation of Marathi text of FIR is not done faithfully 'Enormous use of registration certificate' is described/translated as 'FALSE', which is an incorrect translation. This Court has, therefore, checked Marathi version (original vernacular text). It is seen that the Registration Certificate was not transferable, and the accused have used some other firm's Registration Certificate erroneously for securing set off. 11. Now what the petitioners want is that the statement contained in the First Information Report be accepted as "no description at all". It has to be borne in mind that First Information Report is not to be viewed as an encyclopedia of facts and evidence. It ought to contain narration as to ingredients as nearly as possible. 12. The investigation Department of the complainant has scanned the record and have found the involvement of present applicants as authorized signatories on various documents. It is not the case that the applicants are named as involved and hereby out of fiction. Their prima facie involvement is evident. 13. 12. The investigation Department of the complainant has scanned the record and have found the involvement of present applicants as authorized signatories on various documents. It is not the case that the applicants are named as involved and hereby out of fiction. Their prima facie involvement is evident. 13. All that the complainant/ authorities of the VAT department want, is further investigation of what was explored from the point of view of criminal law, as regards what they had found to be offences and deal with the accused in accordance with law. 14. The petitioners want that without conducting investigation they be declared as innocent. Such an unusual prayer cannot be considered. This request is strange and untenable under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 15. Criminal Application has no merit. Rule discharged. Application dismissed.