Misreading a complaint for delayed return filing as tax evasion vitiates cognizance and warrants quashing.

The HC held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could be entertained despite an available revision under Section 397 CrPC, because repeated identical proceedings and a manifest legal error would otherwise cause avoidable multiplicity. It further held that cognizance for income-tax evasion could not stand where the complaint and departmental notice alleged only belated filing of the return under Section 276-CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, and the trial court had misread the complaint as alleging evasion. The cognizance order was quashed, while the question of prosecution sanction was left open for challenge in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court was maintainable despite the availability of revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the order taking cognizance for evasion of income-tax could stand when the complaint alleged only delay in filing the return under Section 276-CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court was maintainable despite the availability of revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The availability of a revisional remedy was noted, but the Court considered the repeated filing of identical matters and the palpable legal error in the impugned order. Relegating the petitioners to revision was viewed as leading to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the order taking cognizance for evasion of income-tax could stand when the complaint alleged only delay in filing the return under Section 276-CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The complaint and the departmental notice were found to seek prosecution only for belated filing of return, whereas the trial court treated the case as one of evasion of income-tax. This was held to be a clear misreading of the complaint and a manifest error of law. The sanction for prosecution was not examined on merits, as it was neither challenged nor amenable to challenge in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the impugned cognizance order was annulled, while the question of prosecution sanction was left open for challenge in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint seeks prosecution only for delayed filing of return, an order taking cognizance on the premise of tax evasion is vitiated by misreading of the complaint and is liable to be quashed.

---