Complaint must disclose offence on its face; mere introduction of parties cannot sustain prosecution or process.

Allegations that the petitioners merely introduced persons to a co-accused, without any averment of collusion, conspiracy, mala fides, or participation in making or delivering false returns, accounts, or declarations, did not disclose offences under the Income-tax Act or the Indian Penal Code. The High Court held that the complaint had to stand or fall on its own plain reading, and allegations outside it could not be used to sustain process. As the averments, even if accepted as true, did not make out the alleged offences, continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process. The process issued against the petitioners was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the issue of process against the petitioners for offences under the Income-tax Act and the Indian Penal Code was liable to be quashed on the ground that the complaint, on its face, did not disclose any offence against them.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the petitioners had merely introduced certain persons to the co-accused, and that the co-accused later set up bogus cash credits and false statements. The complaint contained no averment of collusion, conspiracy, mala fides, or any role by the petitioners in the making or delivery of the false return, accounts, or declarations. The Court held that the complaint itself had to be examined on its plain reading, and that allegations outside the complaint could not be used to sustain the process. Where the averments, even if accepted as true, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offence, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose any offence by the petitioners under sections 277 or 278 of the Income-tax Act or under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, and the process issued against them was liable to be quashed.

---