9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1022 - HC - Income TaxSearch and seizure - Operation of Bank locker without government authorization / permission - prohibitory order under section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT - It transpires from the contents of the FIR that pursuant to search and seizure conducted on 5.2.2021, an order under section 132(3) of the I.T. Act was served by the Authorised Officer to the HDFC Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna to put a stop operation on the Bank accounts, fixed deposits and bank locker of the assessee. Inspite of the prohibitory order having been communicated to the Bank, the FIR discloses that the same was breached and Smt.Sunita Khemka operated the Bank locker no. 462 on 9.11.2021 at 11.53 a.m.. The said fact is validated from the statements of Bank officials, Smt Sunita Khemka herself as also from the CCTV footage. On quashing of the FIR, the Hon ble Supreme Court has settled the legal proposition in large number of judgments in one after the other. In the case of PRATIBHA RANI VERSUS SURAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER 1985 (3) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT it held that while exercising its power to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. Further from the reading of the FIR in the instant case, the contents of which has to be accepted as true at this stage and the Court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out from the contents thereof. The application is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR). 2. Applicability of Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 275A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Validity of the restrain order under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Intentionality and Mens Rea of the Bank Officials. 5. Legal precedents and principles for quashing an FIR. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR): The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered under various sections of the IPC and Section 275A of the Income Tax Act. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, alleging that the petitioner violated a prohibitory order under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act by operating a bank locker. 2. Applicability of Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, 201, 34 of the IPC and Section 275A of the Income Tax Act: The petitioner argued that the FIR only made out an offense under Section 275A of the Income Tax Act and not under any IPC sections. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations did not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the IPC, as there was no dishonest intention from the inception. The Court, however, found that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under these sections, as well as under Section 275A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Validity of the Restrain Order under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act: The prosecution's case was based on a restrain order under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, which was served to the HDFC Bank to stop operations on the bank accounts and lockers of the assessee. The petitioner argued that a subsequent letter dated 1.11.2021, which mentioned the revocation of the restrain order, could have been misread by the bank officials, leading to an unintentional breach. The Court found no ambiguity in the letter and held that the restrain order was clear and valid. 4. Intentionality and Mens Rea of the Bank Officials: The petitioner argued that the bank officials did not act with any dishonest intention or motive, and at best, it was an administrative lapse. The Court, however, noted that the statements of the bank officials and the CCTV footage confirmed the operation of the locker, indicating a breach of the restrain order. The Court held that the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds to attribute mens rea to the bank officials. 5. Legal Precedents and Principles for Quashing an FIR: The Court referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. These judgments established that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offense. The Court emphasized that it cannot embark on an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at this stage. In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the application to quash the FIR, as the allegations disclosed a prima facie case under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Income Tax Act. The application was dismissed.
|
