RAJU VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present application / petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 1513 of 2015 under Section 279(1), Union of India (through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) vs Raju Verma, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 276C(1) r/w Section 277 of Income Tax Act. A further prayer has also been sought to quash the notice of summoning dated 17.09.2016, charge sheet dated 30.11.2016 and dismissal of an application dated 20.03.2017, filed by the applicant, vide order dated 22.03.2017, by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and all proceedings thereafter (copies Annexure 11 and 16 to the petition).

(2.) The applicant, therefore, not only seeks quashing of prosecution launched against him, but also charge sheet submitted against him. It has been informed to the Court that the criminal proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are at the stage of final arguments. Learned counsel for the applicant is at pains to place judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal & another, 2001 248 ITR 830; judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri vs Central Board of Direct Taxes,1984 ILR(Del) 45; judgment rendered by and judgment rendered by Rajasthan High Court in Shree Singhvi Brothers & others vs Union of India & others, 1991 187 ITR 219 Raj, to argue that Income Tax authorities were not within their competence to launch present prosecution against the applicant, which is going on in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. This Court need not discuss those decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts, in view of the innocuous prayer, which has been advanced on behalf of the applicant and which will be taken up in a short while from now.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently opposed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the petition thus filed is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that similar application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the applicant and when the same was heard by learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the applicant sought permission to withdraw the same, which permission was granted to him. No liberty was sought for filing second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that in the relief clause identical prayer has been sought in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, present petition is not maintainable.