9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1302 - HC - Income TaxCognizance/summoning order u/s 276C (2) r.w.s. 278E of I.T.Act - application u/s 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the Criminal Complaint - HELD THAT - As applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers made in this application. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of his bail application. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, stands refused. However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (10) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of
Issues:
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal complaint and summoning order. Request for expeditious disposal of bail application. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J., addressed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant requesting the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 3073/2018 and the summoning order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Learned Spl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, District: Meerut under section 276C (2) r.w.s. 278 E of I.T. Act. The applicant, represented by counsel, expressed willingness to submit to the court's jurisdiction, seek bail, and accept any conditions imposed by the court. The applicant specifically sought expeditious disposal of the bail application, indicating a change in stance regarding the principal prayers made in the application. The court, considering the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, refused the prayer for quashing of the proceedings and summoning order. However, the court directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from the judgment date and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided based on established legal precedents. The court referred to the case law of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. to guide the decision on the bail application. Furthermore, the judgment stipulated that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for a period of 30 days from the judgment date. However, if the applicant fails to appear before the court within the specified period, coercive action will be initiated. The court explicitly stated that no application for an extension of time would be entertained if the applicant does not comply with the order within the designated timeframe. Finally, the court concluded the judgment by disposing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., providing clear observations and directions for the applicant to follow.
|
