JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 1. Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to delete the petitioner No.1 as the petitioner No.1 has erroneously been impleaded as a party to this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. Registry is directed to delete the petitioner No.1 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with red ink and treat petitioner No.2 as sole petitioner of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the FIR being Adityapur P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 arising out of C.C. No.585 of 2021 and the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with the said Adityapur P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 arising out of C.C. No.585 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Section s 406 , 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code . 6. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.2 who has been described as the sole petitioner, being the Director of Explorer Auto Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Adityapur Industrial Area, Seraikella Kharsawan cheated and dishonestly induced the informant-complainant to pay the Goods and Services Tax amount in respect of supply of motor vehicle parts to the complainant on various bills in total amounting to Rs.57,79,263.34/- during the period of 2017-2022 but after being entrusted with the said Goods and Services Tax amount in capacity of merchant/agent by way of cheating, has dishonestly misappropriated the same amount instead of depositing the same with the State Goods and Services Tax Authority. The FIR of Adityapur P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 was registered, consequent upon the complaint of the informant-complainant being referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after investigation of the case, the police found the allegation against the petitioner No.2 to be true and submitted charge-sheet against him for having committed the said offences and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section s 406 , 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and held that there is sufficient material available in the case record for further proceeding against the petitioner No.2 and directed to issue summons to him. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 draws attention of this Court to Section 132 (1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 and submits that the same provides punishment for the person who retained the benefit arising out of collecting any amount as taxes but failing to pay the same to the Government beyond a period of three months but as per Section 132 (6) of the said Act, for a person to be prosecuted for such offences, the sanction of the Commissioner is required. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner No.2 made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relies upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jayant & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 , para-21.5 of which reads as under:- “21.5. In a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section (1) of Section 23-A, considering sub-section (2) of Section 23-A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any Rules made thereunder so compounded. However, the bar under sub- section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further.” and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when there was prosecution for the offences punishable under the penal provisions both M.M.D.R. Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as the Indian Penal Code ; held that the bar under Section 23-A(2) of the M.M.D.R. Act shall not affect proceedings for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code such as Section 379, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and the same shall be proceeded with further. 9. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.S. Baliah vs. T.S. Rangachari, Income Tax Officer, Central Circle VI, Madras reported in 1968 SCC OnLine SC 68, para-6 of which reads as under:- “6. We proceed to consider the next question arising in this case viz. whether the appellant can be prosecuted both under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 52 of the 1922 Act at the same time. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the General clauses Act (Act 10 of 1897) the appellant can be prosecuted either under Section 52 of the 1922 Act or under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code and not under both the sections at the same time. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Section 26 of the General clauses Act states: “26. Provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments.— Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.” A plain reading of the section shows that there is no bar to the trial or conviction of the offender under both enactments but there is only a bar to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence. In other words, the section provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both the enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that if a person has committed the offence punishable both under the special Act and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code , there is no bar for prosecution for both the offences but there is bar for punishment under two separate penal provisions of law. 10. 10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shah and Co., Bombay vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 1976 SCC OnLine SC 20, para-24 of which reads as under:- “24. Now, coming to the Requisition Act, here again, we have already referred to the fact that it was passed to provide for the requisition of land, for the continuance of requisition of land and for certain other purposes. The various provisions, in this Act, relate to the circumstances under which requisition of land can be made, for a public purpose, and the procedure to be adopted for the same, as well as the payment of compensation. It will therefore be seen that this Act deals with a matter, so totally different from that dealt with by the Rent Act. There is absolutely no similarity between the two enactments, and we cannot hold that the Requisition Act relates to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, as the Rent Act. Hence the two Acts cannot be considered to be in pari materia.” and submits that if an Act deals with a matter totally different from that dealt with by another Act and there are no similarity between them to an extent, the two Acts cannot be considered to be in pari materia and submits that in the facts of this case, since the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 has been enacted to redress the difficulties faced by the then prevalent system of Goods and Services; whereas the Indian Penal Code has been enacted to provide a general penal code for India; certainly, Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act cannot be termed pari materia with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code . 11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anupam Kumar Pathak vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023 JHHC 22555 and submits that the similar submissions as made by the opposite parties herein, did not find favour with the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner No.2 of cheating the complainant-informant by dishonestly inducing him to pay the Goods and Services Taxes by making him believe that the State Goods and Services Tax paid by the complainant will be deposited with the State Tax Authority by the petitioner No.2. But the petitioner No.2 after being entrusted with money by the complainant on being so deceived by the petitioner No.2, has dishonestly misappropriated the said money, being a merchant/agent by not depositing the same with the State Tax Authority, this in the considered opinion of this court, is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code . The said allegations were found to be true against the petitioner No.2 during the investigation of the case and consequent upon which, charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner No.2. 13. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of T.S. Baliah vs. T.S. Rangachari, Income Tax Officer, Central Circle VI, Madras (supra) as well as Jayant & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that if the petitioner No.2 committed the offence under the provisions of special Act like Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 and the offence punishable under the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code , then, merely because there is no sanction of the Commissioner for prosecution under Section 132 (6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, the same will not be an impediment for prosecution of the petitioner No.2 under Section s 406 , 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code . 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order being the order taking cognizance dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with the said Adityapur P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 arising out of C.C. No.585 of 2021 in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . 15. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 16. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.5344 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.