Inherent jurisdiction cannot decide disputed tax-defence facts at the quashing stage; prosecution for non-filing proceeded.

In a prosecution for alleged failure to file an income-tax return under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, the Madras HC held that the accused's reliance on exemption under Section 54F and claimed reinvestment raised disputed factual defences that could be examined only at trial. The Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial, weigh evidence, or test the truth of the defence version where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence. Pre-trial interference was therefore declined, leaving the accused to raise all available defences before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for alleged failure to file return of income could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the accused claimed exemption on account of reinvestment and raised disputed factual defences.

Analysis: The proceedings arose from a prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accusation was non-filing of the return for the relevant assessment year, while the defence rested on claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the footing that the sale consideration had been reinvested. The Court held that such contentions involved disputed facts and a defence that could be examined only during trial. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court could not undertake a mini-trial, appreciate evidence, or assess the truth of the defence version at the threshold.

Conclusion: The quash petition was not maintainable on the merits urged and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

Final Conclusion: Interference at the pre-trial stage was declined, leaving the accused to urge all available defences before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to decide disputed factual defences or weigh evidence where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence.

---