Division Bench remits matter for fresh consideration in Writ Petition, allowing both parties to present claims.

The Division Bench remitted the matter for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present claims in a Writ Petition seeking a Prohibition against the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. A petition was filed to direct the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of a compounding petition within a specified period. With the offence compounded under the Income Tax Act, the relief sought became irrelevant. The respondents were permitted to withdraw the complaint, leading to the closure of the Writ Petition and connected petitions, including the vacating of the stay of proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for Writ of Prohibition against Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Availability of main writ petition and affidavit, Appeal against writ petition, Petition for Compounding, Direction to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Interim stay of proceedings, Composition of offence under Income Tax Act, Withdrawal of complaint, Infructuous nature of relief sought, Closure of Writ Petition and connected petitions.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition sought a Writ of Prohibition against the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences II, Chennai from proceeding in EOCC No.52 of 1997. The main writ petition and affidavit were not available on record, but various miscellaneous petitions and orders were present. The Division Bench set aside an earlier order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present their claims. Subsequently, a petition was filed to direct the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of a compounding petition within a specified period. An interim stay of proceedings was granted, and upon review, it was found that the offence had been compounded under the Income Tax Act, leading to the possibility of withdrawal of the complaint before the Economic Offences Court.

The court acknowledged the composition of the offence under the Income Tax Act, making the relief sought in the writ petition irrelevant. The respondents were given liberty to take steps for withdrawal of the complaint in EOCC No.52 of 1997 in line with the order under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in the closure of the Writ Petition as infructuous. The interim order for stay of proceedings was vacated to facilitate the withdrawal of the Economic Offences Case. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed, bringing the matter to a conclusion.

---