SUDESH GARG Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, officers of the Income-Tax Department, have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ?the Code?) and Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing Criminal Complaint No.2948 of 1996 filed by respondent No.2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ?the IPC?) which is pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. After the petition being entertained and admitted on 06.01.1997, interim relief staying the proceedings before the trial court was granted with the direction that, as soon as the notices were served on the respondents, the matter was to be listed for final hearing on 28.01.1997 under separate category as 'Stay pending trial/inquiry'. Thereafter the petition has been listed from time to time and hearing has been adjourned on one or the other grounds including on the basis that the original complainant was reported to have passed away, which turned out to be incorrect.

(2.) The original complaint has admittedly arisen when the premises of the complainant was searched by the petitioners. It is alleged in the petition and not controverted by the respondents that on 16.08.1996, a team of officers of the Income-Tax Department had at, around 1:30 p.m., went to the office of Desai Builders Group, where two persons, namely, Nirav Desai and Bharat Desai, were asked to give their statements. At that time, several other persons entered the premises and interrupted the process of recording of statements. Those persons were equipped with weapons and they had started abusing and threatening the officers. Due to such obstruction and intimidation, the officers had to leave the office premises of Desai Builders without completing the investigation and a criminal complaint was field in that regard after briefing higher officers of the department. Another team of officers was directed to go to the office premises of Popular Construction Group and when the officers entered the chamber of the leading person of that group at around 3:30 p.m. and served the summons upon him under Section 131(1A) of the Income-Tax Act, respondent No.2 signed his statement, went outside his chamber and telephoned some one. Then a group of persons led by named persons came rushing into the chamber and started abusing and threatening the petitioners. Some of the officers had to take treatment at the hospital because of injuries received by them during the scuffle and criminal complaint came to be filed by petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,177,149,332,395 and 506(1) of the IPC and it was registered as CR.No.I-477 of 1996 at Navrangpura Police Station. That complaint was filed on 16.08.1996 at 11:15 p.m. It is alleged that, in both the aforesaid incidents, five persons were alleged to have been present on the same day at two different premises and abusing and threatening the Income-Tax officers. It is alleged by the petitioners that none of the accused persons was arrested by the police in spite of the complaints which were not properly investigated. On the other hand, the persons accused in the said complaints have, by way of a counter-blast, filed a complaint against the present petitioners which is registered as Criminal Case No.2948 of 1996; and it is that complaint which is sought to be quashed by the present petition.

(3.) It was argued by learned counsel Mr.B.B. Naik, appearing for the petitioners that, even according to the allegations made in the complaint, petitioners were clearly discharging their official duty where they were obstructed and the cause for counter complaint arose. He submitted, on that basis, that the Court could not legally take cognizance of the alleged offences in the above circumstances as the sanction required under the provisions of Section 197 of the Code was admittedly not obtained. It was further submitted that the complaint in question was flied against the petitioners with an oblique motive and there was absolutely no chance of conviction of the petitioners, even as the complaint filed by the petitioners was being entertained and required to be tried in accordance with law, since the petition to quash that complaint was stated to have been withdrawn.