Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 184 (PNJ)

Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

2024-01-18

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2024
JUDGMENT Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 12 23.09.2022 Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and 420, 120B IPC The petitioner, who is not the owner of the firm and vehicle from which the police had recovered goods without payment of Goods and Services Tax (For short 'GST') and on the allegations of involvement of GST officials and other government officials who were running racket for GST, has come up before this court seeking quashing of the above captioned FIR. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record for the purpose that whether the petition is worthy for issuance of notices or not. I have heard counsel for the petitioner on 12.01.2024 and after that on 15.01.2024 and today again for the third time. 3. The petitioner has annexed the FIR in question as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows:- "FIR contents- SHO PS Vigilance Bureau Bathinda, Range Bathinda. Secret information has been received that Jagsir Singh and his son Mandeep Singh who are coming from Haryana-Delhi side are hiding goods in vehicles without bill through their Delhi Malwa transport and stealing government tax in connivance with government officials/employees of Excise and Taxation. They are bringing the goods and cheating the government causing the financial loss. By doing this the government employees/officials abuse their position and get corruption money from private persons for their personal benefit. On receiving this information by making checking parties Vehicle No. DL 1GE 0476 Marka Cantor, Driver Sanjay Kumar son of Ram Yadav Resident of Village Kaveli Tehsil Badlapur District zonpur (Uttar Pradesh), Vehicle No. PB 03BH 6582 Marka Cantor Driver Gurdas Singh Son of Jagroop Singh Resident of Village Balahar vanju District Bathinda and Vehicle No. HR 57A 8522 Marka Cantor Driver Jagsir Singh Son of Amarjit Singh Resident of Village Sikanderpur Thed Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana) and Passer Rinku Son of Gurcharan Singh House No. MCB Z8 3023 Street No.08, Baba Deep Singh Nagar Bathinda, Vehicle No.PB03BA6531 marka Intosliva vehicles were stopped and the along with the government witnesses were checked and drivers and passengers of the vehicles were questioned, Checking memos prepared. On physical inspection of vehicle no. HR 57A 8522, 172 bundles (nug) of goods and articles were found to be billed and 64 were unbilled. On physical inspection of vehicle no. HR 57A 8522, 172 bundles (nug) of goods and articles were found to be billed and 64 were unbilled. On physical inspection of vehicle number PB 03BH 6582, 136 bundles (nug) were found to be billed and 05 were unbilled. On physical inspection of vehicle number DL 1GE 0476, 227 bundles (nug) were found to be billed and 02 were unbilled. On government officials/employees by obtaining corruption from private persons for personal gain, by misusing their position and by connivance with these private person, cheating the government by stealing tax offence 7, 13 PC Act 1988 (Amendment) 2018 and 420, 120-B I.P.C. has been occured. Ruka against the accused (1) Jagsir Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of Street No. 10 Jujhar Singh Nagar Bathinda (2) Mandeep Singh son of Jagsir Singh resident of street number 10 Jujhar Singh Nagar Bathinda (3) Rinku Singh son of Gurcharan Singh Resident Baba Deep Singh Nagar Street No. 8 Bathinda (4) Sanjay Kumar Son of Ram Yadav R/O Village Kaveli Tehsil Badlapur District Zonpur (Uttar Pradesh) (5) Gurdas Singh son of Jagroop Singh Resident of Village Balahar wanju District Bathinda (6) Jagsir Singh son of Amarjit Singh resident of village Sikandarpur Thed tehsil and district Sirsa and Excise and Taxation Department Officers/Employees against the above offence for registration of FIR has been sent through Constable Gurmeet Singh No.6/638 IRB to file the said case to Vigilance Bureau, Range Bathinda. On registration of FIR, the number of fir should be conveyed. Original rukka and fir should be brought to me DSP for investigation. Special reports to be issued. At vigilance bureau, unit Bathinda at 5.00 pm, sd/- Harpreet singh DSP vigilance bureau Punjab, dt. 23-09-2022. On receiving above rukka FIR has been registered against above accused. Misl mukadama has been sent through Constable Gurmeet Singh No. 6/638 IRB to IO harpreet singh DSP Vigilance Bureau." 4. Petitioner's counsel seeks quashing on the following grounds:- "1. The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 12 dated 23.09.2022 registered under sections 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda (Annexure P-1). 2. Petitioner's counsel seeks quashing on the following grounds:- "1. The instant petition is for quashing of FIR No. 12 dated 23.09.2022 registered under sections 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda (Annexure P-1). 2. The allegation is that transport firm belonging to father of the petitioner, is transporting goods in its vehicles without bills and thereby indulging in committing theft of government tax in connivance with government officials/ employees and the petitioner was helping his father in the business. As such, the allegation in nutshell against the petitioner pertain to GST tax evasion. 3. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is a complete code in itself and has specific provision to punish for the offence of causing obstruction to public servants under GST. Now since the allegation against the petitioner and his father are only qua tax evasion, petitioner cannot be tried under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 4. Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2007 pertains to offences and penalties under the Act. A perusal of the provision reveals that a person who supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice or issue of incorrect or false invoice or transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents as may be specified in this behalf, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees, or an amount equivalent to the amount of tax involved had such supply been made by a registered person other than a person paying tax under section 10, whichever is higher. Any action in this regard is to be taken by the Excise and Taxation Department. 5. That further a perusal of affidavit dated 17.05.2023 of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State Intelligence and Preventive Unit, Bathinda (Annexure P-5) reveals that Excise Department is not a party in the present case, as in the matter of interception a specific procedure is followed by the department, which has not been followed in the present case. Thus, it is apparent that continuance of proceedings in the above mentioned FIR against the petitioner is gross abuse of process of law. As such, impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed." 5. State counsel Ms. Thus, it is apparent that continuance of proceedings in the above mentioned FIR against the petitioner is gross abuse of process of law. As such, impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed." 5. State counsel Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab, submits that she has received instructions that it is not a case of GST evasion but of cheating and that of criminal conspiracy of government officials in connivance with GST officials and the petitioner and his father. She submits that these persons were running racket with involvement of government officials and they are evading massive taxes and this time they were nabbed and goods without bills were apprehended. She further submits that it is not a case of violation of Section 122 of Central Goods and Services Act 2017 all alone and/or but primarily a case of cheating with criminal conspiracy and also composite FIR has been registered for violation of Sections 7 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Sections 420 & 120B IPC. State also places reliance to recovery of four diaries from the vehicle, two from each vehicle, in which there is a reference of payment of bribe to the government officials. She submits that investigation is going on and it is not a case where criminal proceedings should be disrupted at this initial stage. 6. When the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, then the police is under a statutory obligation to investigate the same and concluding the investigation by either launching prosecution or by filing a closure report. In between the FIR can only be quashed if investigation is almost completed on all important aspects and remaining investigation will not unfold any significant fact or not likely to unearth any evidence which is likely to change the outcome of the FIR itself. Otherwise the FIR can be quashed and criminal proceedings can be disrupted under Section 482 CrPC only when the investigation is complete in all material particulars. In this case, it has been brought to the notice by the State that four diaries were recovered in which there was a mentioning of payment of bribe to the government officials, who in-turn would lead to petitioner's transporting the goods without payment of taxes. In this case, it has been brought to the notice by the State that four diaries were recovered in which there was a mentioning of payment of bribe to the government officials, who in-turn would lead to petitioner's transporting the goods without payment of taxes. Thus, whether it is a case only of Section 122 of CGST Act 2017 or Section 420 & 120B IPC and/or under PC Act, it is the matter of investigation which is continuing. If this Court disrupts criminal proceedings at this stage, it would amount to interference in the powers of police to investigate and also it would be violative of statutory provisions of CrPC where police has been authorized to conduct investigation within the reasonable time till they come out with either closure report or a report under Section 173 CrPC. 7. Given above, the present petition is premature and this Court cannot scuttle and disrupt the investigation by quashing the FIR for the reason of recovery of diaries pointing towards payment of bribe. Be that as it may, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition for quashing of FIR when he receives a report under Section 173 CrPC., provided the same is filed against the petitioner. 8. Petition is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.