TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n on behalf of the respondents:................... 7 (4) Discussions and Analysis:............................................. 9 (5) Conclusion:.................................................................. 23 (6) Parting Remarks:........................................................ 24 Factual Matrix: 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these criminal misc. petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, these matters are taken up together for final disposal and are being decided by this common order. 2. In all these criminal misc. petitions, the petitioner-Babloo Sharma has made a prayer for quashing of the proceedings pending against him before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan-II for the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"). 3. For the sake of convenience, the prayer mentioned in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2784/2021 has been taken into consideration and the same reads as under: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to quash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ument has been placed on record to show that certain documents were supplied by the respondent-Department to the authorised representative of the petitioner on 21.11.2011. Learned counsel submits that the letter written by VKJ and Company (Chartered Accountants) dated 21.11.2011 does not give any reference of the case pertaining to the petitioner and even the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. Hence, it is clear that the desired documents were never supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that even at the time of filing of the complaint against the petitioner, no documentary evidence was produced on record to show that the desired documents were ever supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that as per the mandate contained under Section 132 of the Act of 1961, the respondent-Department was supposed to supply the copy of panchnama, statements recorded by the search party and all the annexures prepared during the search proceedings, but aforesaid exercise was not done and straightaway, a notice was issued without supplying copies of the same to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel submits that since the aforesaid desired documents were not supplied to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his defence, would be appreciated by the Trial Court, at the appropriate stage of trial. The defence of the accused cannot be looked into and appreciated by this Court by conducting a mini trial or making fishing & roving enquiry. He submits that now the case is posted before the Trial Court for recording of evidence of the witnesses. He further submits that at the time of search, the mandate contained under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 was complied with. 10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-Department has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:- 1. Anukul Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060; 2. Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2023) 20 SCC 398; 3. HMT Watches Ltd. Vs. M.A. Abida & Anr. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 776; & 4. Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330. 11. Lastly, he argued that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, these criminal misc. petitions submitted by the petitioner be dismissed. Discuss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) the return is furnished by him before the expiry of the assessment year; or (b) the tax payable by such person, not being a company, on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax or self-assessment tax, if any, paid before the expiry of the assessment year, and any tax deducted or collected at source, does not exceed ten thousand rupees. 15. Section 153A of the Act of 1961 deals with the provisions of assessment in case of search or requisition. Section 153A of the Act of 1961 reads as under:- "153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years [and for the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed or requisition under section 132A is made on or after the 1st day of April, 2017. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside." 16. The case of the petitioner is that a search was conducted at the business and residential premises of the company-M/s Gold Sukh Trade India Limited and its Directors, including the petitioner, on 18.11.2010 and the notice under Section 153A of the Act of 1961 was issued to him on 09.08.2011 by the respondent-Department and the same was received by him on 11.08.2011. By way of the aforesaid notice, directions were issued to the petitioner to file Income Tax Return within 35 days of receipt of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Trial Court and is supposed to be undertaken by the Trial Court itself at the appropriate stage of trial. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) has held in paras 25 to 28, which reads as under:- 25. Section 482 CrPC is being extracted hereunder: "482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." The discretion vested in a High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised suo motu to prevent the abuse of process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice. 26. This Court had an occasion to examine the matter in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] (incidentally the said judgment was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant), wherein it was held thus: (SCC p. 581, para 29) "29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held." 20. Even in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the disputed question of facts would be determined by the Trial Court and the defence of the accused would not be looked into and adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been held in paras 10 to 15, which reads as under:- "10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the accused (Respondent 1) challenged the proceedings of criminal complaint cases before the High Court, taking factual defences. Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable." 12. In Rallis India Ltd. v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan, (2011) 13 SCC 88, this Court expressed its views on this point as under: (SCC p. 93, para 12) "12. At the threshold, the High Court should not have interfered with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the trial court. The High Court could not have discharged the respondents of the said liability at the threshold. Unless the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the date when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm." 13. In view of the law laid down by this Court as above, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during Trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties." 9.3. Placing reliance on the above principle, it was submitted that the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant's Section 482 petition suffers from no illegality. The High Court correctly recorded as follows: "No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned charge sheet. This application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed." 9.4. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that a cognizable offence is clearly made out from the material gathered during investigation; the matter is under trial; and if the appellant has any defence, the same can only be established before the trial Court. The proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to short-circuit the trial process. Accordingly, the present Crimina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess 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." The categories in Bhajan Lal are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations - (a) preventing abuse of process of law, and (b) ensuring that criminal proceedings are not stifled at the threshold on disputed questions of fact. 11.2. Equally, this Court has consistently cautioned that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a "mini-trial" or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR/complaint and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. [See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madal Lal Kapoor, HMT Watches v. Abida, and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others]. ....