Pendency of reassessment does not bar criminal prosecution for false return statements; quashing refused at summoning stage.

Pendency of assessment or reassessment proceedings, including remand in appeal, does not by itself bar criminal prosecution for offences arising from the same return. The High Court held that the signer of the return's liability for any false statement was a matter for trial, and that the pending tax proceedings did not show abuse of process or justify quashing. It also declined to interfere at the summoning stage in inherent jurisdiction. The quashing petitions were rejected and the criminal complaints were permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaints under the Income-tax Act and the Indian Penal Code should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court merely because assessment proceedings were remanded in appeal and the petitioner contested his role in the returns.

Analysis: The petitioner had signed the return and the question of his liability for any false statement was held to be a matter for trial. The remand order in the income-tax appeal did not bar the institution or continuance of criminal prosecution. Pendency of reassessment or remand proceedings does not by itself amount to an abuse of process or justify quashing. The Court also declined to interfere at the preliminary stage against the summoning order, treating the matter as one not fit for interference in inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitions for quashing were rejected, and the criminal complaints were allowed to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of assessment or reassessment proceedings, including a remand in appeal, is not a bar to criminal prosecution for offences arising out of the same return, and the High Court should not ordinarily quash such proceedings at the summoning stage in the absence of exceptional grounds.

---