Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2517 (ALL)

Tribhuwan Nath v. Union of India

2014-08-19

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Parcha filed by Mr. Govind Krishna, Advocate, on behalf of Union of India, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the record. 3. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 1530 of 1997, under section 276 C.C.I.T. Act, P.S. Income Tax Office, pending before S.C.J.M., Varanasi initiated on the basis of criminal complaint dated 16.9.1985 filed by opposite party no.1 as well as non bailable warrant dated 7.6.2013 passed by S.C.J.M., Varanasi, and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that though the tax was deposited, however, there was delay in filing the Income Tax Return. Applicant is partner of the firm. Once time was allowed for filing of the Return, however, subsequently request was made and no order was passed. Thereafter order was passed to impose penalty and with ulterior motive, complaint has been filed which is still pending. The proceeding relates to the assessment year 1981-82. One another complaint regarding the assessment year 1980-81 regarding which application u/s 482 No. 24395 of 2014, was filed before this Court and the same has already been finally disposed off with the opportunity to file objection/discharge application through counsel. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, proceeding and the summoning order, are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently opposed aforesaid prayer and submitted that Return was not filed by the applicants. Even after extension of time, there was no further prayer for extension of time though contention is that prayer was made to extend the time. After search and seizure, the Return was not submitted even within the time and as such rightly the complaint was filed and proceeding was initiated against the applicants. Due to delaying tactics, complaint is still pending. Hence, the applicants are not entitled for any relief. 6. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicants is correct then no offence is made out and the present proceeding is misuse of process of law. Due to delaying tactics, complaint is still pending. Hence, the applicants are not entitled for any relief. 6. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicants is correct then no offence is made out and the present proceeding is misuse of process of law. Since the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. 7. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties including documents evidence. 8. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 9. However, if application is rejected, applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 . 10. Further, the proceeding is pending since last 29 years hence court concerned, where proceeding is pending, is expected to proceed after decision on objection/discharge application, without further delay to conclude the proceeding, expeditiously, preferably within six month, if there is no legal impediment. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.