9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Allegations of wrongful prosecution without basis and non-compliance with legal procedures. 3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner in initiating proceedings under section 279 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Allegations of mala fides in lodging complaints during pending appeal proceedings. 5. Applicability of article 226 of the Constitution of India against judicial proceedings. Analysis: The judgment pertains to writs of certiorari filed to quash criminal proceedings in various cases before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioners alleged wrongful prosecution without basis and non-compliance with legal procedures, contending that the complaints were not filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, rendering the prosecution illegal. The petitioners argued that under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, proceedings must be initiated at the instance of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, not merely with their sanction. However, the court noted that the question of whether the complaints were lodged at the instance of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is a matter for the trial magistrate to consider, not the writ court. Regarding the mala fides alleged by the petitioners, they claimed that the complaints were filed during pending appeal proceedings to gain rewards under a government scheme, indicating malicious intent. However, the court cited precedents stating that prosecution under the Income-tax Act can proceed even during appeal proceedings, especially if the appellate authority finds discrepancies in the claims made by the assessee. The court emphasized that the question of mala fides is a factual matter for the trial court to determine, not the writ court. Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioners' approach of filing criminal original petitions to quash proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, emphasizing that seeking the same relief through different forums simultaneously is not permissible. The court highlighted that when a remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code is available, approaching the writ court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the same relief is not warranted. Lastly, the court deliberated on the applicability of article 226 of the Constitution of India against judicial proceedings, emphasizing that such writs cannot be directed against proceedings before a court of law. The court dismissed the writ petitions as not sustainable, citing that article 226 cannot be invoked against judicial forums, and imposed costs on the petitioners. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the distinction between the jurisdiction of the writ court and the trial court in adjudicating matters related to criminal proceedings, compliance with legal procedures, allegations of mala fides, and the appropriate forum for seeking remedies under the law.
|
