AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged fraud having been committed by the respondent while in the employment of Daechang Seat Automotive Ltd. Hereinafter "the Company" The present appellant is the authorized representative of the said Company. The main business of this company is to manufacture seat related equipment for cars of the 'KIA' make. The services of Mr. Nikhil K.S. of M/s. N.K. Associates were engaged as Chartered Accountants and Financial Advisors. Over time, a close relationship developed. The substance of the dispute is that the Company was informed that it had wrongly claimed input tax credit amounting to Rs.9,73,96,225.80p., by N.K. Associates. It was further said that the said amount owed to the Goods and Services Tax Department and failure to pay the same entails serious consequences. N.K. Associates then informed the Company that it is the standard practice in India for tax amounts payable to be transferred to the financial advisors who would then pay it onward to the concerned department. In furtherance of the same, the Company, after some internal transfer of money from one account to another, made a transfer from its Indian Overseas Bank Account, which was used for payments, statutory or ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1st Floor, Jaganath Arcade, 4th Main Road, New NEL Road, Bengaluru-56094; (b) Terminus is not having any sign Board or Steel plate having details of the company at their above mentioned registered office; (c) The directors of Terminus are Ms. Anushka Singh and Mr. Vinay Babu Venugopal; (d) Anushka Singh is also the designated partner of NKS Corporate Services LLP; (e) Form No.AOC-4 of Terminus for the year 2018-2019 and also the capital Increase document of the Company have been signed by Mr. Ritesh Mergu as their auditor on 10th March 2020 and July 2022 respectively; (f) Mr. Ritesh Mergu had a relationship with Terminus even before joining the Company; (g) Mr. Ritesh Mergu has been acting as an independent chartered accountant for the aforesaid entities despite being a full-time employee of the Company; (h) All the aforesaid Individuals are intimately connected and working in concert with each other. 15. I submit that the aforesaid persons have made the Company to trust. and believe them as financial advisors and employee. The aforesaid persons have caused the Company to make payment of a huge sum of 10,18,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2018) 8 SCC 271, is impermissible in law. There is also an allegation that the respondent herein received a sum of money being Rs.1,80,00,000/-, which the High Court has referred to as Rs.1,80,000/-. 7. The High Court in its impugned judgment recorded as under : "7......There is no prima facie material placed on record for framing charge against the petitioner-accused No.5 for having received money from the main accused, he is the salaried person obtaining salary from the company. The petitioner has explained that he has received some money from the Korean National as a loan and he said to be received some Indian money from the persons going to Korea and he used to pay Korean currency in their country. Except to the voluntary statement, there is nothing recovered by the police to show he has received money as a bribe from the accused No.1. The accused Nos.1 to 4 received Rs.10 crores towards the payment of GST, but accused Nos.1 to 4 misappropriate the same. If at all the petitioner received any bribe, definitely it will not be for meagre amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. 8 That apart, he was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at liberty to state that he is only a forwarding agent. In fact, it is submitted, he is a vital link in the chain. v) In continuation of the above, it is submitted that the respondent No.1 was not able to justify the recovery of Rs.9,69,000/- from his residence. Moreover, accused No.1 and the respondent, both, in their statements have acknowledged the receipt of Rs.1,80,00,000/- in identical instalments, on the same dates and locations - clearly establishing the latter's role as coconspirators. 8.2 Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted as follows: i) The High Court's observation that there was no direct evidence against respondent No.1 is correct. ii) The appellant is under the wrong assumption that as 'CFO' he had control over the Company's fund(s), when, in fact, his role was administrative due to language barriers. iii) Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Hereinafter 'IPC' is not applicable to the respondent since he is not a public servant, banker, agent or merchant. He is only an employee with no dominion or entrustment of property. iv) Voluntary statement of co-accused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Consistently, this case stands followed. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, these principles, while followed, were further expanded and clarified. [See: Para 13] [See also: P.M. Lokanath v. State of Karnataka 2025 SCC OnLine SC 301; Karuppudayar v. State 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215; and Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. (2025) 2 SCC 604] 11. What is, therefore, to be seen is whether, in the present facts, any of the seven circumstances/situations mentioned in Bhajan Lal (supra) are justifiably met. One of the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 was that r....